MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315464996 · doi:10.1097/rct.0b013e3182436c86

Acute Abdominal Venous Thromboses—The Hyperdense CT Sign

2012· article· en· W2315464996 on OpenAlexaff
Mark A. Goldstein, Lye Quen, Lindsay M. Jacks, Kartik Jhaveri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Assisted Tomography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalMount Sinai HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHounsfield scaleHematocritConfidence intervalRadiologyVenous thrombosisComputed tomographyNuclear medicineThrombosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of unenhanced computed tomography (CT) for diagnosis of acute abdominal venous thrombosis (VT). METHOD: This retrospective study matched 29 patients with 52 VT with a control group of 29 patients without VT. Two radiologists independently evaluated the unenhanced CT on standard abdominal and narrowed window settings to detect acute VT by anatomical location and confidence level. The effect of age, sex, hemoglobin, and hematocrit on VT density (HU) was also evaluated. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 77.9% (95% CI, 66%-85%), 96.7% (95% CI, 94%-98%), and 95.4% (95% CI, 93%-96%), respectively, in the detection of VT, with improved sensitivity and confidence ratings on narrowed windows. Mean VT density (Hounsfield unit) was positively associated with hemoglobin and hematocrit and significantly higher than background blood (67.2 vs 37.0; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Acute abdominal VT can be detected on unenhanced CT in more than two thirds of the cases by identifying hyperdense venous segments.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computer Assisted TomographySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207