MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1521375361

The use of bone scintigraphy with SPECT-CT in the diagnosis and evaluation of calciphylaxis

2014· article· en· W1521375361 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Martineau, Matthieu Pelletier‐Galarneau, Sadri Bazarjani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalciphylaxisMedicineBone scintigraphySoft tissueRadiologyScintigraphyCalcification
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1314 Learning Objectives 1. To review the epidemiology, pathology, and clinical presentation of calciphylaxis. 2. To review the typical bone scan and plain x-ray findings. 3. To examine the role SPECT-CT plays in the localization and characterization of soft-tissue microcalcifications. Calciphylaxis, also known as calcific uremic arteriolopathy, is an uncommon disease, typically found in patients with end-stage renal disease. Pathophysiological features include small vessel vasculopathy with mural calcification, fibrosis, and thrombosis. The clinical presentation varies but often consists of the necrosis of skin and subcutaneous tissues, as well as visceral organ involvement. As such, this condition is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, making accurate diagnosis imperative. We summarize the current standard of care and review the typical findings on bone scan. We present a case which was investigated using planar bone scintigraphy and SPECT-CT, and discuss the advantages of nuclear medicine techniques over conventional radiological assessment. Particular emphasis is placed on the utility of SPECT-CT in evaluating and localizing soft-tissue involvement.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments→French-language works237,207→