MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128501252 · doi:10.1089/neur.2020.0036

The Crucial Role of Eosinophils in the Life Cycle, Radiographical Architecture, and Risk of Recurrence of Chronic Subdural Hematomas

2021· article· en· W3128501252 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin Davidson, Karl Narvacan, David G. Muñoz, Fabio Rotondo, Kálmán Kovács, Stanley Zhang, Michael D. Cusimano

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurotrauma Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurosurgical Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsMedicineEosinophilicPathologyGrading (engineering)PathologicalHomogeneousRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic subdural hematomas (CSDHs) are a common neurological condition, whose incidence is expected to increase with an aging population. Although surgical evacuation is the mainstay of treatment, it results in a recurrence requiring reoperation (RrR) in 3-30% of cases. Recurrence is thought to be driven by a combination of inflammatory and angiogenic processes occurring within the CSDH outer membrane. Pathological specimens of 72 primary CSDHs were examined for eosinophilic infiltrate. For each case, the pre-operative computed tomography (CT) scan was graded according to the Nakaguchi grading scheme as homogeneous, laminar, separated, or trabecular. Rate of RrR was compared based on eosinophilic infiltrate and CT grade. A dense eosinophilic infiltrate was observed in 22% of specimens. The rate of RrR among specimens with a dense eosinophilic infiltrate was 0%, whereas it was 14.3% among specimens without a dense eosinophilic infiltrate. Incidence among homogeneous, laminar, separated, and trabecular CT subtypes was 4%, 27%, 58%, and 24%, respectively. A dense eosinophilic infiltrate found within the outer membrane of a CSDH may be a marker of hematoma maturation, signaling a transition toward healing and fibrosis, and a lower risk of RrR.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurotrauma ReportsSame topicNeurosurgical Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207