MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE USE OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN EVALUATING HORSES WITH SPINAL ATAXIA

2012· article· en· W1538965361 on OpenAlexaff
Colleen W. Mitchell, Stephanie Nykamp, Robert A. Foster, Robert Cruz, Gabrielle Montieth

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Radiology & Ultrasound · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtaxiaMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear magnetic resonanceRadiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing cervical stenotic myelopathy in horses, 39 horses with spinal ataxia and 20 control horses underwent clinical and neurologic examinations, cervical radiographs, euthanasia, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the cervical spine and necropsy. Twenty-four horses were diagnosed with cervical stenotic myelopathy, 5 with cervical vertebral stenosis, 7 with idiopathic ataxia, 3 horses had other causes of ataxia, and 20 were controls. The MR images were assessed for spinal cord intensity changes, presence of spinal cord compression, spinal cord compression direction, shape of spinal cord, and the presence of synovial cysts, joint mice, and degenerative joint disease. The height, width, and area of the spinal cord, dural tube and vertebral canal were measured. The identification of spinal cord compression on MR images was significantly different in horses with cervical stenotic myelopathy (P < 0.02), but in the cervical stenotic myelopathy group the identification of spinal cord compression on MR images had poor to slight agreement with histopathologic evidence of compression (κ = 0.05). Horses with cervical stenotic myelopathy were more likely to have a T2 hyperintensity in the spinal cord (P < 0.05). Horses with cervical stenotic myelopathy or cervical vertebral stenosis were more likely to have degenerative joint disease than control horses or horses with other or idiopathic ataxia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations46
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary Radiology & UltrasoundSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207