MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039984898 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000012119

Author Response: Pearls & Oy-sters: Isolated Oculomotor Nerve Palsy due to Pituitary Apoplexy Missed on CT Scan

2021· article· en· W3039984898 on OpenAlexaff
Sina Marzoughi, Aravind Ganesh, Amro Qaddoura, Pouya Motazedian, Simerpreet Bal

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePituitary apoplexyOculomotor nerve palsySubarachnoid hemorrhageBleedContext (archaeology)Lumbar punctureRadiologyDifferential diagnosisPalsyEtiologySurgeryCerebrospinal fluidPathologyPituitary adenoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We appreciate the comments and helpful tips by Dr. Zhang et al. on our paper.1 We agree with their comment that a negative CT scan cannot rule out the possibility of a subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) or apoplexy, which makes having a low threshold for follow-up scanning with MRI imperative. Had the MRI scan also been unremarkable, we agree that it would have been reasonable to consider a lumbar puncture to explore a possible bleed in the context of a severe headache and focal neurologic signs before attributing it to other, less-serious etiologies. Interestingly, some subarachnoid hemorrhages may be due to non-aneurysmal events of venous origin, particularly in the perimesencephalic areas and not necessarily due to missed aneurysms.2 Finally, it is important to note that a critical take away from this case is that pituitary apoplexy can mimic a subarachnoid hemorrhage presenting with a third nerve palsy, and it is, therefore, important to have on the differential diagnosis of patients presenting with thunderclap headache, in addition to the typically considered diagnosis of SAH.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0320.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicCerebral Venous Sinus ThrombosisFrench-language works237,207