MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976146343 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.01020

Small Vessel Disease

2019· review· en· W2976146343 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine M. Hakim

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaDiseaseMedicineEtiologyRisk factorKidney diseaseObesityInflammationIntensive care medicineCardiologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small vessel disease (SVD) refers to conditions where damage to arterioles and capillaries is predominant, leading to reduced, or interrupted perfusion of the affected organ. Data suggest that when this condition is evident in any organ, it is already systemic in its occurrence and consequences. SVD affects primarily organs that receive significant portions of cardiac output such as the brain, the kidney, and the retina. Thus, SVD is a major etiologic cause in debilitating conditions such as renal failure, blindness, lacunar infarcts, and dementia. The factors that lead to this devastating condition include all the known vascular risk factors when they are not strictly controlled, but lifestyles that include sedentary existence, obesity, and poor sleep patterns are also recognized drivers of SVD. In addition, depression is now recognized as a vascular risk factor. Inflammation is a mediator of SVD, but it is not known which factor(s) predominate in its etiology. This article emphasizes the need for more investigations to define this link further and suggests clinical and societal responses that might reduce the major impacts of this condition on populations.

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)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations54
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207