MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500911978 · doi:10.3171/2014.2.peds13567

Results of a North American survey of rapid-sequence MRI utilization to evaluate cerebral ventricles in children

2014· article· en· W1500911978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric M. Thompson, Lissa Baird, Nathan R. Selden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationProtocol (science)Sequence (biology)Magnetic resonance imagingNeurosurgeryRadiologySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: Growing concern about potential adverse effects of ionizing radiation exposure during imaging studies is particularly relevant to the pediatric population. To decrease radiation exposure, many institutions use rapid-sequence (or quick-brain) MRI to evaluate cerebral ventricle size. There are obstacles, however, to widespread implementation of this imaging modality. The purpose of this study was to define and quantify these obstacles to positively affect institutional and governmental policy. METHODS: A 9-question survey was emailed to pediatric neurosurgeons who were either members or candidate members of the American Society of Pediatric Neurosurgeons at every one of 101 institutions in the US and Canada having such a neurosurgeon on staff. Responses were compiled and descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: Fifty-six institutions completed the survey. Forty-four (79%) of the 56 institutions currently have a rapid-sequence MRI protocol to evaluate ventricle size, while 36 (64%) use it routinely. Of the 44 institutions with a rapid-sequence MRI protocol, 29 (66%) have had a rapid-sequence MRI protocol for less than 5 years while 39 (89%) have had a rapid-sequence MRI protocol for no more than 10 years. Thirty-six (88%) of 41 rapid-sequence MRI users responding to this question obtain a T2-weighted rapid-sequence MRI while 13 (32%) obtain a T1-weighted rapid-sequence MRI. Twenty-eight (64%) of 44 institutions never use sedation while an additional 12 (27%) rarely use sedation to obtain a rapid-sequence MRI (less than 5% of studies). Of the institutions with an established rapid-sequence MRI protocol, obstacles to routine use include lack of emergency access to MRI facilities in 18 (41%), lack of staffing of MRI facilities in 12 (27%), and the inability to reimburse a rapid-sequence MRI protocol in 6 (14%). In the 12 institutions without rapid-sequence MRI, obstacles to implementation include lack of emergency access to MRI facilities in 8 (67%), lack of staffing of MRI facilities in 7 (58%), the inability to reimburse in 3 (25%), and lack of administrative support in 3 (25%). To evaluate pediatric head trauma, 53 (96%) of 55 institutions responding to this question use noncontrast CT, no institution uses rapid-sequence MRI, and only 2 (4%) use standard MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Many North American institutions have a rapid-sequence MRI protocol to evaluate ventricle size, with most developing this technique within the past 5 years. Most institutions never use sedation, and most obtain T2-weighted sequences. The greatest obstacles to the routine use of rapid-sequence MRI in institutions with and in those without a rapid-sequence MRI protocol are the lack of emergency access and staffing of the MRI facility during nights and weekends.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207