MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409223085 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100052549

Screening for Cerebellopontine Angle Tumours: Conventional MRI vs T2 Fast Spin Echo MRI

2001· article· en· W2409223085 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joseph C. Dort, D.J. Sadler, William Hu, Carla Wallace, Pierre La Forge, Robert J. Sevick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebellopontine angleMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingFast spin echoRadiologyT2 weightedNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Unilateral audiovestibular symptoms are commonly seen in clinical practice and are rarely caused by retrocochlear pathology. However, clinicians are often required to rule out potentially serious causes of these unilateral symptoms. Gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (GdMRI) is the most accurate test for detecting small cerebellopontine angle lesions and also screens the adjacent CNS structures. Its main disadvantage is the cost of the procedure. METHODS: We studied 100 consecutive patients with both GdMRI and a newer MRI screening study utilizing unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin echo (fse) MRI. Acquired images were randomly assessed by a panel of three neuro-radiologists. RESULTS: We found that the screening (fse) MRI was as sensitive and specific when detecting cerebellopontine angle tumors. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that T2-weighted fse MRI is a safe and cost-effective alternative to GdMRI and offers better diagnostic utility when compared to auditory brain stem response (ABR) and CT scans.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207