MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2402245338

Complex intracranial arterial anatomy in swine is unsuitable for cerebral infarction projects.

2004· article· en· W2402245338 on OpenAlexaff
Brent Burbridge, Gilbert Matte, Audrey Remedios

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComparative Animal Anatomy Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebral arteriesCircle of WillisCirculatory systemIschemiaCerebral infarctionCarotid arteriesOcclusionAngiographyCerebral angiographyCerebral circulationCerebral perfusion pressurePosterior cerebral arteryAnatomyCardiologyPerfusionRadiologyMiddle cerebral artery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To see whether swine provide a suitable animal model for cerebral ischemia research projects related to apoptosis. Swine angiograms had not been obtained previously in our institution. METHODS: We performed angiography on an anesthetized pig. A right femoral artery cannulation was carried out, and angiographic images of the right cerebral arteries were obtained. RESULTS: We found that the swine cerebral circulatory system demonstrated a plexus of very small vessels, rete mirabile, in the base of the brain that was perfused by the ascending pharyngeal artery and reconstituted into the internal carotid artery downstream. CONCLUSION: Because of the presence of the rete mirabile, the swine brain circulatory system is not amenable to selective, intracranial, angiographic catheter-mediated infarction of cerebral arteries. Surgical occlusion of the common carotid or ascending pharyngeal artery, although technically possible, was also excluded as a method of creating reliable, reproducible cerebral ischemia because of the prompt and robust circle of Willis cross-perfusion that was observed on the angiograms.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations47
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicComparative Animal Anatomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207