MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160394639 · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00210

Fluid biomarkers of white matter hyperintensities in cerebrovascular disease and neurodegeneration: a systematic review protocol

2021· review· en· W3160394639 on OpenAlexaff
Chloe Anastassiadis, Anna Vasilevskaya, Melisa Gumus, Alexandra Santos, Maria Carmela Tartaglia

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperintensityMedicineEtiologyDiseaseWhite matterBiomarkerSystematic reviewMeta-analysisNeurodegenerationPathologyNeuroimagingIntensive care medicineBioinformaticsMEDLINEMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicinePsychiatryRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the association between fluid biomarkers and white matter hyperintensities (WMH) in cerebrovascular disease and neurodegenerative disorders. While previous research has examined the etiology of WMH in specific diseases, we propose a comprehensive framework encompassing WMH of both vascular and non-vascular origin. INTRODUCTION: Although WMH have been mostly described in aging populations with cerebrovascular disease, extensive lesions also occur in non-vascular diseases. Such lesions are traditionally treated as a separate pathological entity from vascular ones, but recent work has challenged the appropriateness of that framework when probing WMH etiology. Comparing biomarkers associated with WMH across various pathologies may improve our understanding of their etiology. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will focus on cerebrovascular disease and neurodegenerative disorders and exclude infectious, metabolic, drug-induced, or radiation-induced white matter diseases. Original, peer-reviewed research on the relationship of WMH on magnetic resonance imaging with blood/cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers will be considered for inclusion. Postmortem studies will guide the selection of biomarkers of interest and the interpretation of our findings. Genomic markers will be excluded. METHODS: The review will be conducted in accordance with PRISMA and JBI guidelines. English articles of interest published between 2000 and 2020 will be identified in MEDLINE and Embase. Two reviewers will perform abstract and full-text screening, standardized data extraction, and quality assessments of the selected studies. The relationship between each biomarker and WMH burden will be meta-analyzed, if possible, with subgroup or meta-regression analyses to assess differences between diseases. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020218298.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207