MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2621034160 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2017.89

P.004 Diagnostic evaluation of cerebral fat embolism: single center retrospective review

2017· article· en· W2621034160 on OpenAlexaffvenue
SA Peters, Trisha Singh, David Tirschwell, Sandeep Khot

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgeryCotton wool spotsRadiologyRetrospective cohort studyTranscranial DopplerComplicationSurgeryRetinopathyDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cerebral Fat Embolism (CFE) is a rare though potentially devastating complication of orthopedic injury which can present with neurologic deterioration. Although specific findings have been described, definitive diagnosis of CFE remains challenging. Methods: Retrospective chart review from a major U.S. trauma hospital. Results: Of 33 patients with CFE, all had long bone fractures, 15 had rib fractures, and 16 occurred following orthopedic surgery for long bone fracture. Cutaneous petechiae were documented in 21%. Diagnostic brain MRI was performed in 26 patients. MRI revealed diffusion-restricting lesions in 24 (92%), with 17 (65%) demonstrating the classic “starfield” pattern, and 14 (54%) with hypointense signal on blood sensitive sequences. Transcranial Doppler (TCD) revealed active microemboli in 9 of 17 (53%) cases. Ophthalmologic consultation occurred in 13 with 9 patients found to have retinal hemorrhage or cotton wool spots suggestive of Purtscher or Purtscher-like retinopathy. “Starfield” pattern on MRI was seen in all 9 patients with retinal findings. TCD microemboli were not associated with retinal findings. Conclusions: The optimal diagnostic workup of CFE is complicated by confounding conditions, the unknown sensitivity of diagnostic modalities, and the unclear implications of findings on treatment and outcome. Nonetheless, brain MRI, TCD and ophthalmologic evaluation should be considered in all suspected CFE patients.

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)0.008
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→