MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312140472 · doi:10.3390/jcm11247463

Should Magnetic Resonance Angiography Be Used for Screening of Intracranial Aneurysm in Adults with Sickle Cell Disease?

2022· article· en· W4312140472 on OpenAlexaff
Igor Gomes Padilha, F Guilbert, Laurent Létourneau‐Guillon, Stéphanie Forté, Kristoff Nelson, Manon Bélair, Jean Raymond, Denis Soulières

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological Complications and Syndromes
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance angiographyMagnetic resonance imagingDiseaseAneurysmRadiologyAngiographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) to detect silent cerebral infarcts. MR angiography (MRA) can identify arterial stenoses and intracranial aneurysms (ICANs) associated with SCD. In this study, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of ICANs in asymptomatic adult patients with SCD referred from the SCD clinic for routine screening by MRI/MRA using a 3T-MRI scanner. Findings were independently reviewed by two neuroradiologists. Between 2016 and 2020, 245 asymptomatic adults with SCD were stratified according to genotype (SS/S-β0thalassemia and SC/Sβ+). ICANs were found in 27 patients (11%; 0.95 CI: 8–16%). ICANs were more frequent in SS/S-β0thalassemia patients (20/118 or 17%; 0.95 CI: 11–25%) than in SC/βb+ patients (7/127 or 6%; 0.95 CI: 2–11%; p = 0.007). Individuals with SCD (particularly SS/S-β0thalassemia) have a higher prevalence of ICANs than the general population. We believe that MRA should be considered in the current American Society of Hematology guidelines, which already contain a recommendation for MRI at least once in adult SCD patients. However, the clinical significance of preventive treatment of unruptured aneurysms remains controversial.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicNeurological Complications and SyndromesFrench-language works237,207