MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114553926 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a1461

Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging: Technical Aspects and Clinical Applications, Part 2

2009· review· en· W2114553926 on OpenAlexaff
Sandeep Mittal, Zhen Wu, Jaladhar Neelavalli, E. Mark Haacke

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSusceptibility weighted imagingMedicineNeurovascular bundleMultiple sclerosisNeuroimagingCerebral amyloid angiopathyStroke (engine)RadiologyClinical imagingMagnetic resonance imagingDiseaseNeurosciencePathologyDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: Susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) has continued to develop into a powerful clinical tool to visualize venous structures and iron in the brain and to study diverse pathologic conditions. SWI offers a unique contrast, different from spin attenuation, T1, T2, and T2* (see Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging: Technical Aspects and Clinical Applications, Part 1). In this clinical review (Part 2), we present a variety of neurovascular and neurodegenerative disease applications for SWI, covering trauma, stroke, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, venous anomalies, multiple sclerosis, and tumors. We conclude that SWI often offers complementary information valuable in the diagnosis and potential treatment of patients with neurologic disorders.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Citations773
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207