MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781476464 · doi:10.12659/pjr.903491

Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging of Vascular Malformations

2018· review· en· W2781476464 on OpenAlexaff
Usman Bashir, Samd Shah, Sunil Jeph, Michael O’Keeffe, Faisal Khosa

Bibliographic record

VenuePolish Journal of Radiology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations and Hemangiomas
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaHealth Sciences CentreSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyVascular malformationDifferential diagnosisVascular anomalyMagnetic resonance angiographyHemodynamicsModality (human–computer interaction)AngiographyPathologyCardiologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vascular malformations pose a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge due to the broad differential diagnosis as well as common utilization of inadequate or inaccurate classification systems among healthcare providers. Therapeutic approaches to these lesions vary based on the type, size, and extent of the vascular anomaly, necessitating accurate diagnosis and classification. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) is an effective modality for classifying vascular anomalies due to its ability to delineate the extent and anatomic relationship of the malformation to adjacent structures. In addition to anatomical mapping, the complete evaluation of vascular anomalies includes hemodynamic characterization. Dynamic time-resolved contrast-enhanced MR angiography provides information regarding hemodynamics of vascular anomalies, differentiating high- and low-flow vascular malformations. Radiologists must identify the MRI features of vascular malformations for better diagnosis and classification.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations44
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolish Journal of RadiologySame topicVascular Malformations and HemangiomasFrench-language works237,207