MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143697715 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a2224

Abnormal Axial Diffusivity in the Deep Gray Nuclei and Dorsal Brain Stem in Infantile Spasm Treated with Vigabatrin

2010· article· en· W2143697715 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo Novelino Simão, S. Zarei Mahmoodabadi, O. Carter Snead, Cristina Go, Elysa Widjaja

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDorsumWhite matterAnatomyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the DTI changes in the deep gray nuclei and dorsal brain stem, which demonstrated abnormal T2 and/or diffusion signal intensity, in 6 patients with infantile spasm treated with vigabatrin compared with 6 age-matched controls. Regions of interest were placed in the globi pallidi, thalami, and dorsal brain stem; FA, trace, D(‖), and D(⊥) were measured. Patients on vigabatrin had significantly lower FA in both globi pallidi (P = .01) and the dorsal brain stem (P < .01), significantly lower trace in both globi pallidi (P = .01) and the thalami (P = .02 and .01 for right and left, respectively), and significantly lower D(‖) in both globi pallidi (P ≤ .01), the thalami (P < .01), and the dorsal brain stem (P = .03). There were no significant differences in D(⊥) of the globi pallidi, thalami, or dorsal brain stem in patients compared with controls. The findings suggest that axonal changes play a greater role in the observed abnormal signal intensity, with lesser contribution from myelin changes.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207