MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038458775 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a2022

Evaluation of Traumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Using Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging

2010· article· en· W2038458775 on OpenAlexaff
Zhen Wu, Shipeng Li, Jing Lei, Daegi An, E. Mark Haacke

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineSubarachnoid hemorrhageSusceptibility weighted imagingSubarachnoid spaceIntensity (physics)RadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineCerebrospinal fluidPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: SWI is an MR imaging technique that is very sensitive to hemorrhage. Our goal was to compare SWI and CT to determine if SWI can show traumatic SAH in different parts of the subarachnoid space. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty acute TBI patients identified by CT with SAH underwent MR imaging scans. Two neuroradiologists analyzed the CT and SWI data to decide whether there were SAHs in 8 anatomical parts of the subarachnoid space. RESULTS: Fifty-five areas with SAH were identified by both CT and SWI. Ten areas were identified by CT only and 13 by SWI only. SAH was recognized on SWI by its very dark signal intensity surrounded by CSF signal intensity in the sulci or cisterns. Compared with the smooth-looking veins, SAH tended to have a rough boundary and inhomogeneous signal intensity. In many instances, blood in the sulcus left an area of signal intensity loss that had a "triangle" shape. SWI showed 5 more cases of intraventricular hemorrhage than did CT. CONCLUSIONS: SAH can be recognized by SWI through its signal intensity and unique morphology. SWI can provide complementary information to CT in terms of small amounts of SAH and hemorrhage inside the ventricles.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations102
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207