MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4246845503 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2019.205

P.112 Permanent isolated micrographia from traumatic basal ganglia injury

2019· article· en· W4246845503 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Amit Persad, V Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital EdmontonSaskatoon Medical Imaging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal gangliaMedicineLesionBasal (medicine)Internal capsuleAnatomyMagnetic resonance imagingSurgeryCentral nervous systemRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Micrographia is a rare neurological finding in isolation. Most cases of isolated micrographia have been found in association with focal ischemia of the left basal ganglia. Methods: We present a case of post-traumatic micrographia stemming from contusion to the left basal ganglia. We performed a detailed analysis of the patient’s writing at three-year follow-up. Results: A halthy 15 year old male was admitted following a BM accident. CT showed contusion to the left basall ganglia/external capsule. MRI was negative for underlying lesion. He had a short stay in the ICU and then was discharged. Two years later, he expressed concern regarding difficulty with sma, cramped writing at school. Writing analysis revealed micrographia with spontaneous printing as well as printing to dictation, but not with copied English nor Japanese writing. Conclusions: Isolated micrographia is a rare neurological finding. We present the incidence of this symptom folllowing gliding contusion to the et basal ganglia and external capsule.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→