MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890242827 · doi:10.1016/j.carj.2018.04.002

Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain: A Systematic Review of Existing Guidelines and Policy Statement Issued by the Canadian Association of Radiologists

2018· review· en· W2890242827 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLanthanide and Transition Metal Complexes
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaHealth Sciences CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaSunnybrook Health Science CentreJuravinski HospitalMcMaster UniversityQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGadoliniumPosition statementDosingSystematic reviewRadiologyMEDLINEFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging evidence has confirmed that, following administration of a gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA), very small amounts of gadolinium will deposit in the brain of humans with intact blood-brain barriers. The literature is evolving rapidly and the degree to which gadolinium will deposit for a particular GBCA or class of GBCAs remains undetermined. Several studies suggest that linear GBCAs deposit more gadolinium in the brain compared with macrocyclic GBCAs; however, our understanding of the molecular composition of deposited gadolinium is preliminary, and the clinical significance of gadolinium deposition remains unknown. To date, there is no conclusive evidence linking gadolinium deposition in the brain with any adverse patient outcome. A panel of radiologists representing the Canadian Association of Radiologists was assembled to assist the Canadian medical imaging community in making informed decisions regarding the issue of gadolinium deposition in the brain. The objectives of the working group were: 1) to review the evidence from animal and human studies; 2) to systematically review existing guidelines and position statements issued by other organizations and health agencies; and 3) to formulate an evidence-based position statement on behalf of the Canadian Association of Radiologists. Based on our appraisal of the evidence and systematic review of 9 guidelines issued by other organizations, the working group established the following consensus statement. GBCA administration should be considered carefully with respect to potential risks and benefits, and only used when required. Standard dosing should be used and repeat administrations should be avoided unless necessary. Gadolinium deposition is one of several issues to consider when prescribing a particular GBCA. Currently there is insufficient evidence to recommend one class of GBCA over another. The panel considered it inappropriate to withhold a linear GBCA if a macrocyclic agent is unavailable, if hepatobiliary phase imaging is required, or if there is a history of severe allergic reaction to a macrocyclic GBCA. Further study in this area is required, and the evidence should be monitored regularly with policy statements updated accordingly.

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.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.274 · 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