MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974884283 · doi:10.1002/ana.25604

Glymphatics Visualization after Focused Ultrasound‐Induced Blood–Brain Barrier Opening in Humans

2019· article· en· W2974884283 on OpenAlexafffund
Ying Meng, Agessandro Abrahão, Chris Heyn, Allison Bethune, Yuexi Huang, Christopher B. Pople, Isabelle Aubert, Clement Hamani, Lorne Zinman, Kullervo Hynynen, Sandra E. Black, Nir Lipsman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersW. Garfield Weston FoundationALS Society of CanadaFocused Ultrasound Foundation
KeywordsVisualizationBlood–brain barrierMedicineUltrasoundNeurosciencePsychologyComputer scienceRadiologyCentral nervous systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is currently unclear whether the glymphatic system, a brain-wide interstitial fluid-cerebrospinal fluid exchange described in rodents, exists in humans. Focal blood-brain barrier disruption using magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound allows parenchymal penetration of gadobutrol contrast, creating an opportunity to study glymphatics in vivo noninvasively. We describe patterns of contrast distribution in the perivascular space, subarachnoid space, and space surrounding large veins draining toward the dural sinuses on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery in subjects with Alzheimer disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This is the first evidence suggesting glymphatic efflux persists in humans. It's relevance to proteinopathies and drug delivery is discussed. ANN NEUROL 2019;86:975-980.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations121
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of NeurologySame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207