MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338967502 · doi:10.1097/rmr.0000000000000082

4D Flow MRI in Neuroradiology

2016· review· en· W2338967502 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

VenueTopics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroradiologyMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyNeurovascular bundleMagnetic resonance angiographyStenosisHemodynamicsCervical ArteryNeuroimagingCollateral circulationBlood flowNeurologyCardiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessment of the intracranial flow is important for the understanding and management of cerebral vascular diseases. From brain aneurysms and arteriovenous malformations lesions to intracranial and cervical stenosis, the appraisal of the blood flow can be crucial and influence positively on patients' management. The determination of the intracranial hemodynamics and the collateral pattern seems to play to a major role in the management of these lesions. 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging is a noninvasive phase contrast derived method that has been developed and applied in neurovascular diseases. It has a great potential if followed by further technical improvements and comprehensive and systematic clinical studies.

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)0.000
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 score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.290 · 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