Cavum Septi Pellucidi in Boxers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Controversy exists over the significance of the isolated finding of cavum septi pellucidi (CSP) and its prevalence rate in healthy individuals and in professional boxers. Few magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have looked at large cohorts of boxers. The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence and extent of a CSP among professional boxers and to compare these with a control group. METHODS: MRI studies of 164 male boxers scanned for annual British boxing board license renewal were reviewed and compared with 43 control patients. CSP prevalence, size, and extent were recorded. Extent was classified as type 1, anterior to the fornix; type 2, extending up to the fornix; and type 3, extending into the cavum vergae. Parenchymal abnormalities were documented, and the Evan's ratio was used as an indication of brain atrophy. RESULTS: A CSP was present in 40% of controls and 49% of boxers. There was a trend to a higher CSP prevalence in boxers (P = .099). No control patient had type 2 or 3 extension (P < .0009), as opposed to 30% and 16% prevalence in boxers. Three boxers increased their extent over serial imaging. No difference in CSP size was established between the 2 groups (P = .43), but there was an association between progressive scans and increased CSP size over time in boxers, independent of age (P = .05). Eight boxers demonstrated a CSP on a subsequent scan not seen on an earlier scan. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of a CSP is high among both control patients and boxers. There is a trend to a larger CSP with increasing number of scans without evidence of atrophy and independent of age. Boxers also have a greater posterior extent than controls. The findings may be explained by sudden increases in intracranial pressure that forced cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) through small defects in the septal leaflets, which result in an increase in size and or extent of a CSP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".