MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113043227 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a3376

CT Perfusion for Confirmation of Brain Death

2012· article· en· W2113043227 on OpenAlexaff
Jai Shankar, Robert Vandorpe

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerfusion scanningNuclear medicinePerfusionRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: For pronouncing brain death, unlike CTP, the 2-phase CTA gives no functional information and is limited by inadvertent delay of the second acquisition, which may give false-negative results. The purpose of our study was to compare CTP and CTA derived from the CTP data with the Dupas and Frampas criteria for confirmation of brain death. A retrospective review of CTP in 11 consecutive patients for confirmation of brain death showed a sensitivity of 72.7% for 7- and 4-point scores, 81.8% for opacification of the ICV, and 100% for CTP scores in the brain stem. CTA obtained from the CTP data showed similar sensitivity in the diagnosis of brain death. This protocol also reduces the iodinated contrast dose and is less operator-dependent. The addition of the functional tools of CTP increased the sensitivity of CTA in the confirmation of brain death.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations68
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207