MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963142811 · doi:10.1111/cxo.12944

Post‐stroke visual midline shift syndrome

2019· review· en· W2963142811 on OpenAlexafffund
Tammy Labreche, Benjamin Wild, Kristine Dalton, Susan J. Leat

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Optometry · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Optometric Education Trust Fund
KeywordsStroke (engine)MedicineOptometryOphthalmologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The state of research on the topic of visual midline shift syndrome following a cerebrovascular accident is unknown. A scoping review was conducted using the search terms of 'visual midline shift' (or equivalent) and 'cerebrovascular accident' (or equivalent). Articles were selected from eight academic and one grey literature database, and went through two levels of review, as per Arksey and O'Malley, before being deemed acceptable for inclusion. Of the 931 abstracts reviewed, 27 articles met the criteria for inclusion. Data extracted from the selected articles included terminology and definition, symptoms, underlying pathophysiology, duration, assessment method, and management of visual midline shift syndrome following cerebrovascular accident. There is agreement on the existence of a midline shift following a cerebrovascular accident resulting in poor posture and imbalance. Much uncertainty exists in the literature regarding terminology, underlying pathophysiology, assessment method and management of this condition. Further research is required.

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)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental OptometrySame topicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionFrench-language works237,207