MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1929430137 · doi:10.1111/jon.12200

Computational Analyses of Arteriovenous Malformations in Neuroimaging

2014· review· en· W1929430137 on OpenAlex
Antonio Di Ieva, Mounir Boukadoum, Salim Lahmiri, Michael D. Cusimano

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroimaging · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingMedicineRadiosurgeryMedical physicsArteriovenous malformationRadiologyRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational models have been investigated for the analysis of the physiopathology and morphology of arteriovenous malformation (AVM) in recent years. Special emphasis has been given to image fusion in multimodal imaging and 3-dimensional rendering of the AVM, with the aim to improve the visualization of the lesion (for diagnostic purposes) and the selection of the nidus (for therapeutic aims, like the selection of the region of interest for the gamma knife radiosurgery plan). Searching for new diagnostic and prognostic neuroimaging biomarkers, fractal-based computational models have been proposed for describing and quantifying the angioarchitecture of the nidus. Computational modeling in the AVM field offers promising tools of analysis and requires a strict collaboration among neurosurgeons, neuroradiologists, clinicians, computer scientists, and engineers. We present here some updated state-of-the-art exemplary cases in the field, focusing on recent neuroimaging computational modeling with clinical relevance, which might offer useful clinical tools for the management of AVMs in the future.

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.

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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.310 · 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