MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138724586 · doi:10.1159/000513721

Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter in Preterm Infants: Suggested Values

2021· article· en· W3138724586 on OpenAlexaff
Molly Rayner, Tanya Holt, Sibasis Daspal, Prosanta Mondal, Leanne Langford, Gregory Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueNeonatology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalSaskatoon Medical ImagingSaskatoon City HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUltrasoundGestational ageNuclear medicineUltrasonographyLinear regressionRadiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Timely detection of elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) in highrisk preterm infants may be critical to avoid permanent neurologic sequelae. Size of optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) is highly correlated with changes in ICP. Normal ultrasonographic ONSD values for preterm infants have been published. This study sought to compare these data with MRI measured OSND and to propose suggested ultrasonographic ONSD values. METHODS: The ONSD in preterm MRIs were retrospectively measured and related to pre-existing ultrasonographic ONSD. Data were stratified for corrected gestational age. Simple linear regression between ONSD mean values and age was modeled for both eyes, and R2 was calculated. Suggested values for ultrasonographic ONSD were ascertained through linear regression and calculated prediction intervals. RESULTS: ONSD measurements demonstrated R2 values of 0.95 (right ONSD MRI), 0.95 (left ONSD MRI), 0.96 (right ONSD ultrasound), and 0.93 (left ONSD ultrasound). Suggested ONSD values were incremental with corrected gestational age. CONCLUSION: ONSD measurements with MRI and ultrasound are similar. The proposed suggested ONSD values may be helpful in clinical situations where ICPs are suspected or known.

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)0.000
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 score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeonatologySame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207