MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in the appearance of venous sinuses after treatment of disordered intracranial pressure

2004· article· en· W2068237313 on OpenAlexaff
Devra Baryshnik, Richard Farb

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntracranial pressureRaised intracranial pressureMedicineVenous pressureRadiologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral angiographic findings in idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) and spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) have been described. Conventional cerebral venography has demonstrated tapered stenoses and filling defects in the transverse sinuses of patients with IIH.1 These stenoses have also been found in >90% of IIH patients imaged with auto-triggered elliptic-centric-ordered three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR venography (ATECO MRV).2 Conventional cerebral angiography demonstrated prominence of intracranial venous structures in patients with SIH.3 To date, MRI correlates of these dilated venous channels have not been described. This report discusses the use of ATECO MRV to demonstrate the normalization of venous sinus caliber associated with the resolution of these two disorders of intracranial pressure (ICP). ### Case 1. A 21-year-old woman was diagnosed with IIH. CSF opening pressure was 32.5 cm H2O. Months later, she was admitted to our institution with persistent headache and blurred vision despite maximal doses of acetazolamide. Examination revealed an obese woman with bilateral papilledema. CSF opening pressure remained elevated at 24 cm H2O. An 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations118
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicCerebral Venous Sinus ThrombosisFrench-language works237,207