Appropriate neurological evaluation and multimodality magnetic resonance imaging in eclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: Simultanagnosia is common in eclampsia and a visuospatial test may be the most appropriate method in assessing the degree and monitoring of neurological deficit. AIM: To determine a sensitive clinical test for the degree of neurological deficit in eclampsia and in monitoring neurological change. METHODS: Thirty women with eclampsia were evaluated by clinical neurological quantitative scales including the Canadian Neurological Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, a validated Cookie Theft Picture Test (CTPT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (T1/T2), diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). RESULTS: The CTPT, used to measure simultanagnosia, had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 84.5-100), specificity of 33.3% (95% CI: 1.8-87.5) with positive predictive value of 93.1% (95% CI: 75.8-98.8) and negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI: 5.5-100). The degree of agreement between simultanagnosia as measured by CTPT and DWI was 93.3% (Kappa=0.474; P=0.001). Standard MRI compared with DWI had a sensitivity of 77.8% (95% CI: 57.3-90.6), specificity of 100% (95% CI: 31-100), positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI: 80.8-100) and negative predictive value of 33.3% (95% CI: 9-69.1). The degree of agreement between standard MRI and DWI was 90%, this was statistically significant (Kappa=0.412: P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The validated CTPT for simultanagnosia was abnormal in the majority (n=29; 96.7%) of eclamptic patients with other neurological scales normal. Standard MRI and DWI showed excellent correlation with this simple bedside clinimetric evaluation. The oedema in eclampsia is primarily of vasogenic origin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".