MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2807328594 · doi:10.1109/isbi.2018.8363812

Cerebral blood flow and predictors of white matter lesions in adults with Tetralogy of Fallot

2018· article· en· W2807328594 on OpenAlexaff
Yaqiong Chai, Jieshen Chen, Cristina Galarza, MaaykeA. Sluman, Botian Xu, Chau Vu, Edo Richard, Barbara J.M. Mulder, Benita Tamrazi, Natasha Leporé, Henk Mutsaerts, John C. Wood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsCerebral blood flowTetralogy of FallotCardiologyHyperintensityFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryMedicineInternal medicineVoxelCerebral infarctionWhite matterStroke (engine)Magnetic resonance imagingRadiologyIschemiaHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term outcomes for Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) have improved dramatically in recent years, but survivors are still afflicted by cerebral damage. In this paper, we characterized the prevalence and predictors of cerebral silent infarction (SCI) and their relationship to cerebral blood flow (CBF) in 46 adult TOF patients. We calculated both whole brain and regional CBF using 2D arterial spin labeling (ASL) images, and investigated the spatial overlap between voxel-wise CBF values and white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) identified from T2-FLAIR images. SCIs were found in 83% of subjects and were predicted by the year of the patient's first cardiac surgery and patient's age at scanning (combined r20.44). CBF was not different in brain regions prone to stroke compared with healthy white matter.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→