MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488527120 · doi:10.1177/08830738060210050201

Topical Review: Animal Models of Germinal Matrix Hemorrhage

2006· review· en· W1488527120 on OpenAlexaff
Janani Balasubramaniam, Marc R. Del Bigio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminal matrixSubependymal zoneGerminal centerAnimal modelMedicineHydrocephalusMatrix (chemical analysis)NeurosciencePathologyPsychologyIntraventricular hemorrhageSurgeryBiologyImmunologyInternal medicineChemistryAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Germinal matrix hemorrhage refers to bleeding that arises from the subependymal (or periventricular) germinal region of the immature brain. Clinical studies have shown that infants who experience germinal matrix hemorrhage can develop hydrocephalus or suffer from long-term neurologic dysfunction, including cerebral palsy, seizures, and learning disabilities. Understanding the causative factors and the pathogenesis of subsequent brain damage is important if germinal matrix hemorrhage is to be prevented or treated. Appropriate animal models are necessary to achieve this understanding. A number of animal species, including mice, rats, rabbits, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, and primates, have been used to model germinal matrix hemorrhage. This literature review critically evaluates the animal models of germinal matrix hemorrhage. Each model has its own advantages and disadvantages; no single model is suitable for the study of all aspects of brain damage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207