MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2927829144 · doi:10.4103/1673-5374.253513

The “Brain Stress Timing” phenomenon and other misinterpretations of randomized clinical trial on aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

2019· review· en· W2927829144 on OpenAlex
Rafael Martínez-Pérez, Natalia Rayo, Agustín Montivero, JorgeMarcelo Mura

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Regeneration Research · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubarachnoid hemorrhageClipping (morphology)Endovascular coilingMedicineAneurysmRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineEndovascular treatmentSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clipping and coiling are currently the two alternatives in treatment of ruptured cerebral aneurysms. In spite of some meritorious analysis, further discussion is helpful to understand the actual state of art. Retreatment and rebleeding rates clearly favors clipping, although short-term functional outcome seems to be beneficial for clipping, while this different is not such if we perform the comparison at a longer follow up. Long-term follow ups and cost analysis are mandatory to have a clear view of the current picture in treatment of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Treatment strategy should be made by a multi-disciplinary team in accredited centers with proficient experience in both techniques.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.234 · 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