Radiologic Evaluation Criteria for Chronic Subdural Hematomas: Recommendations for Clinical Trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embolization of the middle meningeal artery has gained substantial interest as a therapy for chronic subdural hematomas. For the results of the currently running chronic subdural hematoma trials to inform clinical practice, sufficient accuracy and matching definitions are necessary. We summarized the current practice in chronic subdural hematoma evaluation and derived suggestions on reporting standards using the {Nested} Knowledge AutoLit living review platform. On the basis of the most commonly reported data elements, we suggested a set of standardized image-based study end points for chronic subdural hematoma evaluation for future trials. The measurement methods and reporting standards as proposed in this article have been derived from published best practices and are endorsed by the European Society of Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapy's research committee. The standardization of radiologic outcome measures and measurement techniques in chronic subdural hematoma embolization trials would increase the impact and implication of each trial as well as facilitate data pooling for increased statistical power and, therefore, translation to clinical practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it