MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4255144548 · doi:10.1002/9781119421399.ch35

Hepatovascular disorders

2015· other· en· W4255144548 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dipl. ACVR Erik R. Wisner, MAS Allison L. Zwingenberger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiologyPortal hypertensionAngiographyPuppyMagnetic resonance imagingPortosystemic shuntFistulaMagnetic resonance angiographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advent of multislice computed tomography (CT) and advanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography protocols, cross-sectional imaging has become a gold standard diagnostic technique for hepatovascular anomalies. This chapter focuses on various vascular disorders, including arterioportal fistula, congenital intrahepatic shunts, multiple acquired extrahepatic shunts, congenital extrahepatic shunts and complex vascular anomalies. MR angiography has been used for diagnosis of hepatovascular disorders because of its excellent depiction of the portal and abdominal vasculature. Congenital intrahepatic shunts occur in large-breed dogs (Irish Wolfhounds, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Australian Cattle Dogs, Old English Sheepdogs) and rarely in cats, resulting in a large-diameter direct communication with the caudal vena cava. Multiple acquired extrahepatic portosystemic shunts form because of portal hypertension, often due to primary hepatic parenchymal disease. Congenital extrahepatic shunts occur in smaller-breed dogs (Cairn Terriers, Yorkshire Terriers, Russell Terriers, Dachshunds, Miniature Schnauzers, Maltese) and cats.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.005

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLiver Disease and Transplantation→French-language works237,207→