MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134385368 · doi:10.3390/jcm10051086

Neuroimaging of Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage

2021· review· en· W3134385368 on OpenAlexaff
Peter B. Sporns, Marios‐Nikos Psychogios, Grégoire Boulouis, Andreas Charidimou, Qi Li, Enrico Fainardi, Dar Dowlatshahi, Joshua N. Goldstein, Andrea Morotti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeuroimagingIntracerebral hemorrhageHematomaContext (archaeology)Magnetic resonance imagingEtiologyRadiologyComputed tomographyIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicineSubarachnoid hemorrhagePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) accounts for 10% to 20% of all strokes worldwide and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Neuroimaging is clinically important for the rapid diagnosis of ICH and underlying etiologies, but also for identification of ICH expansion, often as-sociated with an increased risk for poor outcome. In this context, rapid assessment of early hema-toma expansion risk is both an opportunity for therapeutic intervention and a potential hazard for hematoma evacuation surgery. In this review, we provide an overview of the current literature surrounding the use of multimodal neuroimaging of ICH for etiological diagnosis, prediction of early hematoma expansion, and prognostication of neurological outcome. Specifically, we discuss standard imaging using computed tomography, the value of different vascular imaging modalities to identify underlying causes and present recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography perfusion.

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)0.000
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207