MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2439077617 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2016.214

P.113 Validation and standardization of cerebral vasospasm grading on CT angiography

2016· article· en· W2439077617 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David Ben‐Israel, Eduardo Caverzasi, Aditya Bharatha

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsSystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)Toronto Public HealthCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDigital subtraction angiographyVasospasmGrading (engineering)Subarachnoid hemorrhageAngiographyRadiologyCerebral vasospasmGrading scaleCerebral angiographyNuclear medicineInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The diagnosis of cerebral vasospasm, either by digital subtraction angiography (DSA), or now more commonly by computerized tomographic angiography (CTA) occurs in up to 70% of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). The lack of standardization among vasospasm grading has made its clinical correlation with delayed cerebral ischemia challenging Methods: 36 of the 764 aSAH patients found on the St. Michael’s Hospital RIS database had both DSA and CTA performed, at time of admission and again between day 2 and 14 following SAH. Two blinded neuroradiologists graded all vessels for vasospasm on two separate scales, by consensus for DSA and independently for CTA Results: Comparing CTA and DSA, Grading Scale (GS)1 had the highest Spearman Correlation Coefficient (SCC): 0.691 (P<0.001) for Rater (R)1, and 0.687 (P<0.001) for R2. SCC was higher when only considering proximal vessels. Cohen’s Kappa (CK) measuring inter-rater reliability was 0.695 (P<0.001) for GS2 and 0.681 (P<0.001) for GS1. CK was higher in anterior circulation vessels, and tended to decrease with increasing vasospasm grade. Conclusions: Although either scale will provide the benefits of standardization to clinical practice and research, GS1 is recommended as it is more intuitive and provides higher SCCs, with only slightly lower CKs.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications→French-language works237,207→