MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128585433 · doi:10.1017/s1355617708080958

Auditory interhemispheric transfer in relation to patterns of partial agenesis and hypoplasia of the corpus callosum in spina bifida meningomyelocele

2008· article· en· W2128585433 on OpenAlexafffund
H. Julia Hannay, A Earl Walker, Maureen Dennis, Larry A. Kramer, Susan Blaser, Jack Μ. Fletcher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsSpleniumRostrumCorpus callosumSpina bifidaAgenesis of the corpus callosumAgenesisHydrocephalusCorpus Callosum AgenesisAnatomyPsychologyLateralityHypoplasiaDichotic listeningAudiologyMedicineBiologySurgeryWhite matterRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spina bifida meningomyelocele with hydrocephalus (SBM) is commonly associated with anomalies of the corpus callosum (CC). We describe MRI patterns of regional CC agenesis and relate CC anomalies to functional laterality based on a dichotic listening test in 90 children with SBM and 27 typically developing controls. Many children with SBM (n = 40) showed regional CC anomalies in the form of agenesis of the rostrum and/or splenium, and a smaller number (n = 20) showed hypoplasia (thinning) of all CC regions (rostrum, genu, body, and splenium). The expected right ear advantage (REA) was exhibited by normal controls and children with SBM having a normal or hypoplastic splenium. It was not shown by children with SBM who were left handed, missing a splenium, or had a higher level spinal cord lesion. Perhaps the right hemisphere of these children is more involved in processing some aspects of linguistic stimuli.

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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207