MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741599780

Corrigendum: Hearing impairment is associated with smaller brain volume in aging : [Front. Aging Neurosci, 9, (2017) (2)]. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00002

2017· erratum· en· W2741599780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephanie C. Rigters, D. Bos, R.M. Metselaar, Gennady V. Roshchupkin, Robert J. Baatenburg de Jong, Meike W. Vernooij, André Goedegebure

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2017
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelPsychologyContrast (vision)Computer scienceAudiologyCognitive psychologyMedicineArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the original article, Roshchupkin et al. (2016) was not cited in the article. The citation has now been inserted in Materials and Methods, subsection Brain MRI Acquisition and Processing, second paragraph and should read: Voxel based morphometry (VBM) was performed according to an optimized VBM protocol (Good et al., 2001) and was previously described (Roshchupkin et al., 2016). FSL software (Smith et al., 2004) was used for VBM data processing, all GM and WM density maps were non-linearly registered to the standard ICBM MNI152 GM and WM template (Montreal Neurological Institute) with a 1 mm × 1 mm × 1 mm voxel resolution. Subsequently, a spatial modulation and smoothing procedure with 3 mm (FWHM 8 mm) isotropic Gaussian kernel were applied to all images. The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.220 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207