MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205903237 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.13412

Neuroimaging Pearls from the <scp>MDS</scp> Congress Video Challenge. Part 1: Genetic Disorders

2022· review· en· W4205903237 on OpenAlexaff
Diana A. Olszewska, Sapna Rawal, Conor Fearon, Paula Alcaide‐Leon, Rick Stell, Vijayashankar Paramanandan, Timothy Lynch, Tania Jawad, Padmaja Vittal, Brandon Barton, Hiroaki Miyajima, Satoshi Kono, Rukmini Mridula Kandadai, Rupam Borgohain, Anthony E. Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological diseases and metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathognomonicNeuroimagingDifferential diagnosisMedical diagnosisNeuroscienceMedicineMovement disordersPsychologyDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We selected several "imaging pearls" presented during the Movement Disorder Society (MDS) Video Challenge for this review. While the event, as implicated by its name, was video-centered, we would like to emphasize the important role of imaging in making the correct diagnosis. We divided this anthology into two parts: genetic and acquired disorders. Genetic cases described herein were organized by the inheritance pattern and the focus was put on the imaging findings and differential diagnoses. Despite the overlapping phenotypes, certain described disorders have pathognomonic MRI brain findings that would provide either the "spot" diagnosis or result in further investigations leading to the diagnosis. Despite this, the diagnosis is often challenging with a broad differential diagnosis, and hallmark findings may be present for only a limited time.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.019

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeSame topicNeurological diseases and metabolismFrench-language works237,207