MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028733841 · doi:10.1097/rct.0b013e3181969972

Comparison of Computed Tomography 3-Dimensional Volumetric Analysis of Ventricular Size to Visual Radiological Assessment

2009· article· en· W2028733841 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Assisted Tomography · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiological weaponVoxelConfidence intervalNuclear medicineRadiologyVentricleCerebral VentriculographyHydrocephalusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Interpretation of ventricular volume on computed tomography scans of hydrocephalus patients is usually subjective. The objective of this study was to determine whether radiological assessment of interval change correlates better with an objective calculated volume change or with other objective 2-dimensional estimates of ventricle volume change. METHODS/SAMPLE: Ventricular volume, Evans ratio, and frontal and occipital Horn ratio were retrospectively assessed on 95 pairs of scans from patients with a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. To determine ventricle volume, all voxels of cerebrospinal fluid density were isolated on a 3-dimensional reconstructed computed tomography scan. Voxels of fluid density contiguous with one another in the ventricular system were isolated. Radiological assessments of interval change were divided into 5 groups based on reported findings in the radiology report. The 95% mean confidence intervals were developed for changes in the measured parameters, given a particular radiological assessment. Multinomial regression was subsequently performed to determine which parameter was most closely correlated with the radiological assessment. RESULTS: Significant overlap was found in the confidence intervals for objectively calculated volume change between the different categories of radiological assessment. The frontal and occipital Horn ratio had the most consistent correlation with the radiological assessment, followed by the Evans ratio. Objectively calculated volume change correlated poorly with radiological assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Radiological interpretation does not correlate well with objectively calculated volume changes, but correlates better with other parameters that approximate volume and are likely used to visually evaluate interval change. We recommend that ventricle volume be objectively measured to increase consistency between radiological interpretation and actual interval changes.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.308 · 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