MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330711988 · doi:10.1177/1971400916639960

Post-operative imaging in deep brain stimulation: A controversial issue

2016· review· en· W2330711988 on OpenAlex
Christian Saleh, Georges Dooms, C. Berthold, Frank Hertel

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Neuroradiology Journal · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationNeuroimagingModalitiesMedicineModality (human–computer interaction)Medical physicsNeuroscienceRadiologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In deep brain stimulation (DBS), post-operative imaging has been used on the one hand to assess complications, such as haemorrhage; and on the other hand, to detect misplaced contacts. The post-operative determination of the accurate location of the final electrode plays a critical role in evaluating the precise area of effective stimulation and for predicting the potential clinical outcome; however, safety remains a priority in postoperative DBS imaging. A plethora of diverse post-operative imaging methods have been applied at different centres. There is neither a consensus on the most efficient post-operative imaging methodology, nor is there any standardisation for the automatic or manual analysis of the images within the different imaging modalities. In this article, we give an overview of currently applied post-operative imaging modalities and discuss the current challenges in post-operative imaging in DBS.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.330 · 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