MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116627975 · doi:10.1148/rg.274065123

Lesions of the Hypothalamus: MR Imaging Diagnostic Features

2007· review· en· W2116627975 on OpenAlexaff
Sahar N. Saleem, Ahmed-Hesham M. Said, Donald H. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDifferential diagnosisHypothalamusMagnetic resonance imagingPathologyCentral nervous systemRadiologyIn vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hypothalamus is susceptible to involvement by a variety of processes, including developmental abnormalities, primary tumors of the central nervous system (CNS), vascular tumors, systemic tumors affecting the CNS, and inflammatory and granulomatous diseases. The hypothalamus may also be involved by lesions arising from surrounding structures such as the pituitary gland. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the modality of choice for evaluating the anatomy and pathologic conditions of the hypothalamus. The MR imaging differential diagnosis depends on accurate anatomic localization and tissue characterization of hypothalamic lesions through the recognition of their signal intensity and contrast material enhancement patterns. Diffusion-weighted imaging and proton MR spectroscopy can be helpful in differentiating among various types of hypothalamic lesions. Key MR imaging features, in addition to the patient's age and clinical findings at presentation, may be helpful in developing the differential diagnosis for lesions involving the hypothalamic region.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations118
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207