MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262110851 · doi:10.1002/ana.24609

Transcranial Doppler versus transthoracic echocardiography for the detection of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic cerebral ischemia: A systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta‐analysis

2016· review· en· W2262110851 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatent foramen ovaleTranscranial DopplerReceiver operating characteristicConfidence intervalCardiologyInternal medicineMeta-analysisLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingStroke (engine)Gold standard (test)Prospective cohort studyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) can be detected in up to 43% of patients with cryptogenic cerebral ischemia undergoing investigation with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The diagnostic value of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in the detection of PFO in patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack has not been compared with that of transcranial Doppler (TCD) using a comprehensive meta-analytical approach. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review to identify all prospective observational studies of patients with cryptogenic cerebral ischemia that provided both sensitivity and specificity measures of TTE, TCD, or both compared to the gold standard of TEE. RESULTS: Our literature search identified 35 eligible studies including 3,067 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for TCD was 96.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 93.0-97.8%) and 92.4% (95% CI = 85.5-96.1%), whereas the respective measures for TTE were 45.1% (95% CI = 30.8-60.3%) and 99.6% (95% CI = 96.5-99.9%). TTE was superior in terms of higher positive likelihood ratio values (LR+ = 106.61, 95% CI = 15.09-753.30 for TTE vs LR+ = 12.62, 95% CI = 6.52-24.43 for TCD; p = 0.043), whereas TCD demonstrated lower negative likelihood values (LR- = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02-0.08) compared to TTE (LR- = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.42-0.72; p < 0.001). Finally, the area under the summary receiver operating curve (AUC) was significantly greater (p < 0.001) in TCD (AUC = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97-0.99) compared to TTE studies (AUC = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.82-0.89). INTERPRETATION: TCD is more sensitive but less specific compared to TTE for the detection of PFO in patients with cryptogenic cerebral ischemia. The overall diagnostic yield of TCD appears to outweigh that of TTE.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.234 · 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