MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100473054 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100005722

Perivascular Spaces: Normal and Giant

2007· review· en· W2100473054 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Randy Fanous, Mehran Midia

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathognomonicPerivascular spacePathologicalPathologyMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingGlymphatic systemDifferential diagnosisPathogenesisCerebrospinal fluidRadiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to discuss both normal perivascular spaces (PVSs) and pathological giant perivascular spaces (GPVSs). The anatomy and physiology of normal PVSs, including important immunological and lymphatic roles, are described. Special attention is given to the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) findings of both normal and GPVSs. Furthermore, the clinical features and pathogenesis of GPVSs are explored, with special emphasis on the pathological implications of these lesions, and their relevance. It is important that symptomatic GPVSs not be mistaken for more devastating disease processes. When the lesions in question occur in a characteristic location along the path of a penetrating vessel, are isointense with cerebrospinal fluid on all MRI sequences, do not enhance with contrast material, are not calcified, and have normal adjacent brain parenchyma, their appearance is pathognomonic of GPVSs. The clinician should realize that an extensive differential diagnosis is superfluous and that biopsy is unnecessary in these patients. Instead, the clinical focus should be aimed at neurosurgical intervention, as dictated by the symptoms of mass effect.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.315
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207