MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044662504 · doi:10.3988/jcn.2015.11.2.200

Utility of Oblique Coronal Images in Elderly and Cognitively Impaired Patients

2015· article· en· W2044662504 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Young Ho Park, Jae‐Won Jang, So Young Park, Min Jeong Wang, Jae Hyoung Kim, SangYun Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronal planeDementiaAtrophyNeuroimagingMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicinePopulationCognitive impairmentPsychologyDiseasePathologyRadiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor, The ongoing and rapid increase in the number of elderly people in Korea has led to an increasing number of cognitive problems among this population. 1 A nationwide survey has estimated the prevalence rates of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia among Koreans aged at least 65 years to be 24.1% and 8.1%, respectively. 2 The number of dementia patients is expected to double every 20 years until 2050. 2 Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of MCI and dementia. 1,2 Since medial temporal atrophy (MTA) occurs early and prominently in patients with AD, 3 a 5-point scoring system has been developed to rate the severity of the condition, from grade 0 (no MTA) to grade 4 (severe MTA). 4 This scoring system is applied to oblique coronal T1weighted images that are obtained parallel to the brainstem axis (Fig. Visual rating of MTA based on coronal images has been used as a reliable marker for AD since its introduction more than 20 years ago. 6 Although a visual rating system for MTA using T1-weighted axial images was developed recently, 7 it has not been used in other studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207