MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889302188 · doi:10.1177/1925362118797729

Pathological Assessment of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy

2018· review· en· W2889302188 on OpenAlexaff
Randy Van Ommeren, Lili‐Naz Hazrati

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Forensic Pathology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic traumatic encephalopathyPathologicalMedicineConcussionTraumatic brain injuryForensic pathologyAthletesHead traumaIntensive care medicineAutopsyPoison controlPathologyInjury preventionPsychiatryPhysical therapySurgeryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) has become a topic of considerable interest in recent years, with wide-ranging implications for athletes, military members, and other groups exposed to frequent concussive or subconcussive head trauma. The condition has been subject to intensive neuropathological characterization by various groups, with assessment methodologies and staging criteria proposed. Clinical characterization of symptoms has also been performed, but has not yet been definitively formalized. While efforts are underway to develop in vivo markers of tauopathies including CTE, these remain experimental at this time, necessitating postmortem analysis for definitive diagnosis. The putative link between development of cognitive and behavioral dysfunction and neuropathological findings of CTE may prompt requests for postmortem assessment in the forensic setting. Here, we review current concepts in CTE research, describe histopathological findings in CTE, and describe methodologies for pathological assessment of CTE which may be useful to the forensic pathologist.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Forensic PathologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207