MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985817579 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.107.497453

When to Expect Negative Diffusion-Weighted Images in Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

2008· article· en· W1985817579 on OpenAlexaff
PN Sylaja, Shelagh B. Coutts, Andrea Krol, Michael D. Hill, Andrew M. Demchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Diffusion MRIIschemiaCardiologyMagnetic resonance imagingIschemic strokePerfusion scanningLacunar strokeInternal medicineInfarctionBrain ischemiaRadiologyPerfusionMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The frequency of DWI negative cerebral ischemia and clinical factors associated with such a circumstance is not well understood. METHODS: We performed MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) within 24 hours of symptom onset and again at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 401 patients, 103 (25.6%) had an initial negative DWI study. In the DWI negative group, among the stroke patients, 6/26 (23.1%) had infarcts on follow-up MRI (4 lacunar and 2 posterior circulation syndromes) and 1 had a rMTT deficit. Among the TIA patients, 4/63 (6.3%) showed rMTT deficits and 2/63 (3.2%) had infarcts on follow-up MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline perfusion weighted imaging sequences may detect ischemia in a small proportion of DWI negative cases. Only those with brain stem location or lacunar syndrome were DWI negative initially and yet had a follow-up imaging confirmation of infarct or a final clinical diagnosis of stroke.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations140
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207