MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285183273 · doi:10.4103/aian.aian_136_22

Cerebral Visual Loss

2022· article· en· W4285183273 on OpenAlexaff
Jason J. S. Barton

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Indian Academy of Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual agnosiaAgnosiaVisual fieldMedicineDyslexiaAudiologyVisual processingAffect (linguistics)ApraxiaCognitive psychologyPsychologyPerceptionNeuroscienceAphasiaReading (process)Communication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral visual disorders include a range of common and rare deficits. They can be divided into effects on low-, intermediate-, and high-level forms of visual processing. Low-level deficits are various forms of homonymous hemifield scotomata, which affect all types of vision within their borders. Intermediate-level deficits refer to impairments of colour or motion perception, which affect either one hemifield or the entire field when lesions are bilateral. High-level deficits are divided into those of the ventral (occipitotemporal) or dorsal (occipitoparietal) stream. Occipitotemporal lesions affect various aspects of object recognition, ranging from general visual agnosia to selective agnosias, such as prosopagnosia or topographagnosia from right or bilateral lesions, and pure alexia from left-sided lesions. Occipitoparietal lesions cause the various components of Bálint syndrome, namely, simultanagnosia, optic ataxia, and ocular motor apraxia. They can also cause other impairments of visuospatial or visuotemporal processing, such as astereopsis and sequence-agnosia. Because of anatomic proximity, certain deficits cluster together to form a number of cerebral visual syndromes. Treatment of these disorders remains challenging, with frequent reliance on strategic substitutions rather than restorative approaches.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.006

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Indian Academy of NeurologySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207