MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995324767 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a6368

Lateral Decubitus Digital Subtraction Myelography: Tips, Tricks, and Pitfalls

2019· review· en· W2995324767 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurosurgical Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyelographyMedicineSubtractionFluoroscopyRadiologyDigital subtraction angiographyImage subtractionNuclear medicineAngiographySpinal cordComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceImage processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital subtraction myelography is a valuable diagnostic technique to detect the exact location of CSF leaks in the spine to facilitate appropriate diagnosis and treatment of spontaneous spinal CSF leaks. Digital subtraction myelography is an excellent diagnostic tool for assessment of various types of CSF leaks, and lateral decubitus digital subtraction myelography is increasingly being used to diagnose CSF-venous fistulas. Lateral decubitus digital subtraction myelography differs from typical CT and fluoroscopy-guided myelograms in many ways, including equipment, supplies, and injection and image-acquisition techniques. Operators should be familiar with techniques, common pitfalls, and artifacts to improve diagnostic yield and prevent nondiagnostic examinations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.301 · 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