MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533931553 · doi:10.5772/31483

New Directions in the Dynamic Assessment of Brain Blood Flow Regulation

2012· book-chapter· en· W1533931553 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth B. Christopher, Kenneth W. Lindsay, Nimmy Thankom Philip

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral autoregulationTranscranial DopplerContext (archaeology)Neurovascular bundleMedicineCerebral blood flowAutoregulationComputer scienceNeuroscienceCardiologyInternal medicinePsychologySurgeryBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The principal aim of this book chapter is to provide an overview of the utilities of transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD), and high resolution vascular ultrasound for the assessment of human cerebrovascular function with respect to other common measurement tools. Specifically, we aim to: (1) examine the advantages and disadvantages of TCD in the context of other imaging metrics; (2) highlight the optimum approaches for insonation of the basal intra-cerebral arteries; (3) provide a detailed summary of the utility of TCD for assessing cerebrovascular reactivity, autoregulation and neurovascular coupling and the clinical application of these measures; (4) give detailed guidelines for the appropriate use and caveats of neck artery flow measures for the assessment of regional cerebral blood flow distribution; and (5) provide recommendations on the integrative assessment of cerebrovascular function. Finally, we provide an overview of new directions for the optimization of TCD and vascular ultrasound. Future research directions both physiological and methodological are outlined.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207