MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048370769 · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000001558

The Essentials of Brain Anatomy for Physiatrists

2020· review· en· W3048370769 on OpenAlexaff
Yoo Jin Choo, Mathieu Boudier‐Revéret, Min Cheol Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcuate fasciculusHuman brainNeuroscienceFunctional magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineAnatomyLimbic systemPsychologyWhite matterCentral nervous systemTractographyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Detailed knowledge of the brain anatomy is important for the treatment of patients with brain disorders. In this study, we conducted a review of essential parts of human brain anatomy based on magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Using T2-weighted brain magnetic resonance imaging, we explained how to recognize several structures in each brain lobe (the frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes). We depicted the boundary of each structure on brain magnetic resonance imaging and described their functions. The limbic system controls various functions such as emotion, motivation, behavior, memory, and olfaction. Broca's and Wernicke's areas and arcuate fasciculus are important structures for human language functions. Emotion, memory, and language function are one of the main functions of human. Therefore, the anatomical knowledge of the limbic system and language-related structures is important for physiatrists. We described the anatomical location and function of each substructure of the limbic system and language centers. In addition, we indicated the exact points of motor- and sensory-related neural tracts (corticospinal tract, corticoreticular pathway, medial lemniscus, and spinothalamic tract) on brain magnetic resonance imaging. We believe that our review on brain anatomy would be helpful for physiatrists to accurately identify the damage of each function from brain disorders and elucidate proper plan for rehabilitative treatment.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.412 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207