MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538596157 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00461

Sources of Variation Influencing Concordance between Functional MRI and Direct Cortical Stimulation in Brain Tumor Surgery

2016· article· en· W2538596157 on OpenAlexafffund
Melanie A. Morrison, Fred Tam, Marco M. Garavaglia, Gregory M. T. Hare, Michael D. Cusimano, Tom A. Schweizer, Sunit Das, Simon J. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersUniversity of TorontoCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsConcordanceFunctional magnetic resonance imagingMedicineGold standard (test)Magnetic resonance imagingBrain tumorAwake craniotomyPsychologyRadiologyCraniotomyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Object: Preoperative functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) remains a promising method to aid in the surgical management of patients diagnosed with brain tumors. For patients that are candidates for awake craniotomies, surgical decisions can potentially be improved by fMRI but this depends on the level of concordance between preoperative brain maps and the maps provided by the gold standard intraoperative method, direct cortical stimulation (DCS). There have been numerous studies of the concordance between fMRI and DCS using sensitivity and specificity measures, however the results are variable across studies and the key factors influencing variability are not well understood. Thus, the present work addresses the influence of technical factors on fMRI and DCS concordance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207