MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097951474 · doi:10.1017/s0012162201002699

Head growth and cranial assessment at neurological examination in infancy

2002· review· en· W2097951474 on OpenAlexaff
Claudine Amiel‐Tison, Julie Gosselin, Claire Infante‐Rivard

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurological examinationMedicineHead (geology)Physical examinationPediatricsPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most dramatic increase in brain volume occurs in the last three months of fetal life and the first two years after birth. Concomitantly, the skull follows the volumetric increase in the cerebral hemispheres mostly by passive adaptation. The relationship between head and brain growth explains why the classical neurological assessment in infancy universally includes measurement of head circumference (HC). However, this crude information derived from HC measurement remains insufficient to qualify brain growth. One way to better document the relation between brain and skull could be to rely on the correlation between HC and body growth parameters, given a general agreement on the definition of proportionate and disproportionate head–body growth. Significant information with respect to the integrity of the underlying cerebral hemispheres can also be provided by systematic palpation of the main cranial sutures. In particular, the distension or overlapping of the squamous sutures which are strategically located at the junction of the cranial vault and the cranial base could be a valid marker of brain growth disorder.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations51
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207