MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974528687 · doi:10.1097/rct.0b013e31818d8de6

Fat Within the Wall of the Urinary Bladder

2009· article· en· W1974528687 on OpenAlex

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 Computer Assisted Tomography · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sept Iles
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrinary systemUrinary bladderComputed tomographicUrologyComputed tomographyRadiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to describe the computed tomographic appearance, characteristics, and significance of fat in the wall of the urinary bladder. METHODS: Twenty-three cases of intramural fat were reviewed. Use of intravenous contrast, sex, and degree of bladder distention were noted. Location of intravesical fat was tabulated. RESULTS: Intramural fat is typically seen as a thin low-density band along the anterior and superior portions of a partially filled urinary bladder. Most of the cases are in men (90%) and are seen on unenhanced studies (>80%). The prevalence of intramural fat was just less than 2%. CONCLUSIONS: Fat within the wall of the urinary bladder can be a normal histological finding that is detected at computed tomography typically in patients with nondistended urinary bladders on unenhanced studies.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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