MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408810827 · doi:10.1097/mop.0000000000000282

Transcranial Doppler ultrasound in children with stroke and cerebrovascular disorders

2015· review· en· W2408810827 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kerri L. LaRovere

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pediatrics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineTranscranial DopplerStroke (engine)Pediatric strokeCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineIschemiaIschemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A major advantage of transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound is its ability to measure cerebral hemodynamics noninvasively at the patient's bedside. This article summarizes the basic physics and variables used during TCD, recent pediatric data published on the use of TCD in stroke and cerebrovascular disorders and how it may impact diagnosis and management, and some issues to be resolved so that TCD can be put into clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: In sickle cell disease in children, TCD is the gold standard stroke prediction tool. Recent data suggest that TCD may provide important information in ischemic stroke because of other childhood arteriopathies such as moyamoya syndrome, transient or focal cerebral arteriopathy, and genetic/syndromic causes. TCD may also detect cerebral emboli and diagnose right-to-left atrial cardiac shunts in children with cryptogenic stroke and transient ischemic attack. SUMMARY: There are many potential clinical applications for TCD in pediatric stroke and cerebrovascular disorders. Additional research in children is needed to determine whether TCD can identify markers of increased stroke risk, elucidate underlying stroke mechanisms, influence the choice of additional testing and treatment, and ultimately impact patient outcomes.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PediatricsSame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207