MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027841050 · doi:10.1177/08830738030180021401

Cranial Ultrasonography Has a Low Sensitivity for Detecting Arterial Ischemic Stroke in Term Neonates

2003· article· en· W2027841050 on OpenAlexaff
Meredith R. Golomb, Paul T. Dick, Daune MacGregor, Derek Armstrong, Gabrielle deVeber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUltrasonographyMagnetic resonance imagingStroke (engine)Gestational ageInfarctionRadiologyCohortSick childArterial Ischemic StrokeCerebral infarctionPediatricsMyocardial infarctionIschemiaInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of cranial ultrasonography for detecting acute arterial ischemic stroke in term neonates. Thirty-six neonates with gestational age > or = 36 weeks who had cranial ultrasonography followed by computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) confirming arterial ischemic stroke were identified from a consecutive cohort study of all children diagnosed with arterial ischemic stroke by CT or MRI and seen at Chedoke McMaster Hospital between January 1992 and December 1998 or at The Hospital for Sick Children between January 1992 and December 2000. Cranial ultrasonography demonstrated focal abnormalities in 11 patients, giving the initial cranial ultrasonography a sensitivity of 30.56% for identifying neonates with infarction (95% CI 15.5-45.5%). The sensitivity of cranial ultrasonography performed in the two pediatric referral centers (Chedoke McMaster Hospital and Hospital for Sick Children; n = 19) was higher than that in community hospitals (n = 17) (47.3% versus 11.7%; P =.031). Neonates with suspected infarction should be evaluated with CT or MRI.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations71
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207