MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2411598037

Room for a view: Scans

2002· article· en· W2411598037 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alison Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNothingMedicineArt historyArtPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

May ... MRI this morning, observing. A newborn baby with a mass blocking his nose. One tiny baby, with entourage of technicians, nurses, paramedics filling the room overlooking the MRI. An impatient, even imperious, entourage; when they want their questions answered, their questions must be answered. All the time the baby is inside, his heart rate traces green peaks on the monitor and the rough, quick little whisper of his breathing carries through the intercom. The scan ends, the table is drawn out, three people in blue slowly unwrap a tiny package in dustier blue. A nurse lifts the baby and holds him in outstretched hands, like a gem on a cushion, one hand cupping the little pink head. She carries him thus through the metal detector arch, seemingly oblivious to the scrambling behind her as the two others snatch up all the dangling tubing and wires before they snap taut. On the scans, the imminent end of another life. The tumour and the surgery and the radiation and the chemotherapy have hollowed out the left hemisphere. The tumour is a bright, thick, ragged edge around a great cavity. No level of scan, no single layer, is spared. The neurologist describes the patient as asphasic and crazy. The family, he says, is taking him around the continent, looking for a cure; he comes accompanied by MRIs and CTs from all over, recording the inexorable progression. Our neurologist thinks that the referring neurologist has prevaricated, has said maybe/maybe not, has not said finally that there is nothing else he can do. He himself would not touch this, not in a dominant hemisphere. So he will send this man home. Will he — will anyone — finally say to this family that it is time to stop? September ... I have been thinking off and on of two people I shall never meet. Should I put their names here — perhaps not — but I do not leave them nameless because I think of them that way. One a woman younger than myself, thrown from her car when side-rammed at 65 k/h, comatose (Glasgow Coma Score 4) with roving eyes and decerebrate posturing. The CT scan shows very little, in her head at least. She has a fractured first vertebra, umpteen spinous processes destroyed. The radiologist remarks on the inadequacy of the scan, which has the signature of one particular, indifferent technician. The head scan, with no visible abnormalities, does not account for the score, the eyes, the posturing. There is something bad and unseen in the brainstem: axonal damage. They can do nothing about a lesion they cannot see. The neurosurgeon will put a “bolt” in the vertebrae; there is a slight twist to his expression when he says this. If the big problem does not come right, then he will have done nothing to any avail. But in case the big problem does come right, then this will have been necessary. The other is a man only a little older than myself. Four years ago he fired a bullet into his frontal lobe, destroying eye and brain. On scan his glass eye is a shallow curve, mounted on an odd stalk. Wednesday night in the drunk tank he beat his head against the wall until the craniotomy plate shattered, arteries tore and his cranium filled with blood. On the pre-op scans, a glowing lens of epidural hematoma fills a third of one hemisphere. This story is told and retold. Doctors smile and shake their heads, not amused, a little awed, a little, necessarily, removed. They can say why bother; why not let him go. But they can say it because they know they will not do it. All they can do — for him, for all the failed suicides — is rebuild what they can rebuild. The exorcism of demons is beyond us. The infernal thing, though, is that we are wilfully letting it go further beyond us still, fostering this illusion of community care when community care is inadequate to nonexistant for the homeless mentally ill. Have I said before how very vulnerable skulls look, in cross section, the flesh and features effaced and only the thin bones or the thin skin or the thin fluid shell of the brain bright. No matter the age, there is always something fragile and infantile about the skull. A new word. Levelling. Learned it last week when the radiologists passed around an cerebral angiogram with a huge blot, a huge ink-bag of aneurysm, its image as large as the tip of my thumb. Was she still alive? She'd had a rebleed; the resident phoned upstairs to find out. “Is she still with us?” He put the phone down. “They're going to level her.” And then, to me, he explained, “Decrease the level of care until she dies.”

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9050.783

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→