MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117377042 · doi:10.1007/s00247-020-04905-9

Current state of perinatal postmortem magnetic resonance imaging: European Society of Paediatric Radiology questionnaire-based survey and recommendations

2020· article· en· W3117377042 on OpenAlexaff
Elspeth Whitby, Amaka C Offiah, Susan C. Shelmerdine, Rick R. van Rijn, Michaël Aertsen, Willemijn M. Klein, David Perry, Stacy Goergen, Christian Abel, Ajay Taranath, Dominic Gascho, Elka Miller, Owen J. Arthurs

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Radiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversity of SheffieldResearch Councils UKRoyal College of RadiologistsNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsMedicineNeuroradiologyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyAutopsyInterventional radiologyNeuroimagingTask forceMedical physicsNeurologyPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postmortem magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in perinatal and childhood deaths is increasingly used as a noninvasive adjunct or alternative to autopsy. Imaging protocols vary between centres and consensus guidelines do not exist. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to develop practical, standardised recommendations for perinatal postmortem MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Recommendations were based on the results of two surveys regarding local postmortem MRI practices sent electronically to all 14 members of the European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) Postmortem Imaging Task Force and 17 members of the International Society of Forensic Radiology and Imaging Task Force (25 different centres). RESULTS: Overall, 11/14 (78.6%) respondents from different institutions perform postmortem MRI. All of these centres perform postmortem MRI for perinatal and neonatal deaths, but only 6/11 (54.5%) perform imaging in older children. CONCLUSION: We propose a clinical standard for postmortem MRI sequences plus optional sequences for neuroimaging and cardiac anatomy depending on available scanning time and referral indications.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric RadiologySame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207