MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391509131 · doi:10.1016/j.crad.2024.01.025

Not Dandy Walker variant: a review of prominent retrocerebellar CSF space in children

2024· review· en· W4391509131 on OpenAlexaff
T. Wee, Neetika Gupta, Elka Miller, A. Pauranik

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Radiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDandyDandy–Walker syndromeHydrocephalusSurgeryArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prominent retrocerebellar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) space can be frequently encountered on paediatric neuroimaging studies. In cases involving abnormal vermian development where imaging does not align with the established criteria of Dandy-Walker malformation (DWM), the term "Dandy-Walker variant or continuum" has been historically employed to describe the aberrant posterior fossa development. Instead, the emphasis is on a more elaborate description of the findings in the posterior fossa. Moreover, combining the findings in the supratentorial brain can occasionally predict certain neurogenetic disorders that mimic Dandy-Walker phenotype. The present review demonstrates and differentiates the imaging features of various entities that result in an enlarged retrocerebellar CSF space, such as inferior vermian hypoplasia (IVH) and several neurogenetic conditions.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.325 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical RadiologySame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207