MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991332934 · doi:10.1177/0883073809333539

Low Detection Rate of Craniocervical Arterial Dissection in Children Using Time-of-Flight Magnetic Resonance Angiography: Causes and Strategies to Improve Diagnosis

2009· article· en· W1991332934 on OpenAlexaff
Marilyn A. Tan, Gabrielle deVeber, Adam Kirton, Logi Vidarsson, Daune MacGregor, Manohar Shroff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance angiographyMagnetic resonance imagingArterial dissectionAngiographyRadiologyDissection (medical)Stroke (engine)Vertebral artery dissection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Craniocervical arterial dissection is a frequent cause of childhood arterial ischemic stroke requiring prompt diagnosis and treatment. However, there is no universal guideline for diagnostic cerebrovascular imaging in children. We assessed the role of time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography in diagnosing craniocervical arterial dissection. We included children (1 month to 18 years) with craniocervical arterial dissection and ischemic stroke from January 1998 to June 2007. Institutional protocol required magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ magnetic resonance angiography for all ischemic stroke cases and conventional cerebral angiography if magnetic resonance angiography showed any arteriopathy. Among 233 ischemic stroke cases, craniocervical arterial dissection was diagnosed in 13 patients (5.6%; 10 males), with a mean age of 7.5 years. Initial time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography missed dissection in 8 patients (61.5%) because the neck vessels were not scanned (n = 2), of suboptimal technique (n = 3), and of diagnostic error (n = 3). T1 fat-saturated MRI and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography were not performed in 12 patients. If suspicion for arterial dissection is high, T1 fat-saturated neck imaging and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography should be considered to maximize detection.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations34
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207