MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2136604340 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139207294.011

Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy in Huntington’s disease

2013· book-chapter· en· W2136604340 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Iltis, Janet M. Dubinsky

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingSusceptibility weighted imagingNuclear magnetic resonanceQuantitative susceptibility mappingBasal gangliaBrain tissueNeurosciencePathologyMedicineBiologyRadiologyCentral nervous systemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iron content is one of the physiological variables that can be estimated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the basal ganglia of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Brain iron is relatively independent from total body iron content since it is excluded by the blood-brain barrier. The microstructural and physiological organization of tissue plays an important role in determining the local magnetic field behavior of a given region in the brain. Recent work has extended previous observations by using a multimodal approach that combines MRI techniques for imaging iron content with other MRI sequences. MR-based measurements that are directly related to magnetic susceptibility changes should be closely related to iron content and less dependent on its microscopic spatial distribution. Susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) is a technique that uses magnetic susceptibility differences between different regions to generate image contrast. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) plays an important role in the treatment of PD.

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.008

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→