MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012160449 · doi:10.1177/0846537120909468

An Update in Imaging of Blunt Vascular Neck Injury

2020· review· en· W3012160449 on OpenAlexaff
Rawan Abu Mughli, Tong Wu, Jessica Li, Saba Moghimi, Zersenay Alem, Muhammad Umer Nasir, Waleed Abdellatif, Savvas Nicolaou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBluntRadiologyComputed tomographyMedical imagingBlunt traumaCarotid arteriesMedical physicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic injuries of the cervical carotid and vertebral arteries, collectively referred to as blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI), can result in significant patient morbidity and mortality, with one of the most feared outcomes being cerebrovascular ischemia. Systematic imaging-guided screening for BCVI aims for early detection to guide timely management. In particular, accurate detection of the severity and grade of BCVI is paramount in guiding initial management. Furthermore, follow-up imaging is required to decide the duration of antithrombotic therapy. In this article, classification of the grades of BCVI and associated imaging findings will be outlined and diagnostic pitfalls and mimickers that can confound diagnosis will be described. In addition, updates to existing screening guidelines and recent efforts of criteria modification to improve detection of BCVI cases will be reviewed. The advent of postprocessing tools applied to conventional computed tomography (CT) angiograms and new diagnostic tools in dual energy CT for improved detection will also be discussed.

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)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207