MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734481583 · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(17)30196-5

Detection, risk factors, and functional consequences of cerebral microinfarcts

2017· review· en· W2734481583 on OpenAlexafffund
Susanne J. van Veluw, Andy Y. Shih, Eric E. Smith, Christopher Chen, Julie A. Schneider, Joanna M. Wardlaw, Steven M. Greenberg, Geert Jan Biessels

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Neurology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on AgingHorizon 2020Innovate UKNational Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammePartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerFondation LeducqNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeUniversity of CalgaryBritish Heart FoundationHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaGenentechEli Lilly and CompanyAge UKSouthern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteFondation Brain CanadaAlzheimer's AssociationNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekHartstichtingDana FoundationWellcome TrustNational Institutes of HealthHjerteforeningenZonMwAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsAlzheimer SocietyMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDementiaCerebral infarctionCerebral cortexPathologyDiseaseMedicineLesionNeurosciencePsychologyCardiologyIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations306
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet NeurologySame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207