Disorders Of Brain And Mind. 1998. Edited by Maria A. Ron and Anthony S. David. Published by Cambridge University Press. 373 pages. C$62.93 approx.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the preface, the authors state that the atlas would be most useful as a review to senior residents studying for the Radiology Boards, as well as neuroradiology fellows or practitioners preparing for the CAQ examination.My experience with the atlas strongly supports this contention as it is one of the best texts I have ever seen for this purpose.The cases are collected from the "Unknown Case Conference" that occurs within the Neuroradiology Section on a weekly basis at the University of California at San Francisco.They are therefore susceptible to colloquial dogma, however, any such influence is quite subtle and widely accepted neuroradiological principles are upheld -no surprises here!The cases chosen for inclusion have been carefully selected and are excellent representations of the various disease processes that can affect the brain, meninges.and cranial nerves.Classic findings specific to each disease are demonstrated usually with modern images of very high quality.Each case is presented in a standard format that begins with the clinical presentation accompanied by the relevant images; This is followed by description of the radiological findings, the diagnosis, the differential diagnosis, and the discussion.The concise discussion is divided into the following subheadings: background, clinical findings, pathology (gross and microscopic), CT imaging findings, MR imaging findings, treatment and finally prognosis.At the end of the case, a reference of suggested up-to-date readings is provided.Highlighted in jfte margins ofej&h easels % sectiondescribing pearls and pitfeHs that are especially useful in informing the reader of specific elues and potential traps that help to sharpen the reader's overall diagnostic aettmen.Complimenting each case is a set of additional images taken from other patients with the same disorder, permitting the reader to gain a flavor of the diversity of imaging findings that may be present.Overall, the quality and range of cases is excellent.Imaging findings stay true to the classical patterns of disease.The coverage is comprehensive providing an excellent review for a board or CAQ examination.A bulleted format is used within the subheadings that permits rapid acquisition of information decreasing the fatigue usually associated with identification of relevant information within conventional full sentence text.It is a very pleasing format for presenting the information permitting fast learning.The only negative feature, if one intends to use this text as a test of diagnostic ability (i.e.true board style testing format), is that the cases, even though they are presented as unknowns, are somewhat predictable because of their grouping into specific disease categories.Random sequencing of the cases would have alleviated this problem but organization of the text would have suffered.Nevertheless, this atlas provides a comprehensive and rapid method for reviewing non-spinal CNS disorders.I would strongly recommend it as a primary tool for Neuroradiological review.The authors and the publisher Thieme have created a web site where an additional 29 cases (to date) have been made available for review following the same format as the text.I would suggest that anyone interested in purchasing the text access this well-designed web site (www.thieme.com) to obtain their own impressions of this work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.134 | 0.114 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".