MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125896637 · doi:10.1186/1752-1947-5-479

Diagnosis of pericardial cysts using diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging: A case series

2011· article· en· W2125896637 on OpenAlexaff
Asam Raja, Jonathan R. Walker, Maneesh Sud, Joe Du, Matthew R. Zeglinski, Andrew Czarnecki, Negareh Mousavi, Davinder S. Jassal, Iain D. C. Kirkpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Case Reports · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyasthenia Gravis and Thymoma
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface HospitalUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingSeries (stratigraphy)Cardiac magnetic resonanceDiffusion MRISurgical oncologyRadiologyNuclear magnetic resonanceInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Congenital pericardial cysts are benign lesions that arise from the pericardium during embryonic development. The diagnosis is based on typical imaging features, but atypical locations and signal magnetic resonance imaging sequences make it difficult to exclude other lesions. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging is a novel method that can be used to differentiate tissues based on their restriction to proton diffusion. Its use in differentiating pericardial cysts from other pericardial lesions has not yet been described. CASE PRESENTATION: We present three cases (a 51-year-old Caucasian woman, a 66-year-old Caucasian woman and a 77-year-old Caucasian woman) with pericardial cysts evaluated with diffusion-weighted imaging using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Each lesion demonstrated a high apparent diffusion coefficient similar to that of free water. CONCLUSION: This case series is the first attempt to investigate the utility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of pericardial cysts. Diffusion-weighted imaging may be a useful noninvasive diagnostic tool for pericardial cysts when conventional imaging findings are inconclusive.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Case ReportsSame topicMyasthenia Gravis and ThymomaFrench-language works237,207