MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414229280 · doi:10.1177/15910199251375541

Optimizing density of intrathecal contrast at digital subtraction myelography: Evaluation of differing needle characteristics and injection rates in a phantom

2025· article· en· W4414229280 on OpenAlexaff
Anahita Malvea, Emily Chung, Mehran Nasralla, Eef J. Hendriks, Richard Farb

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Neuroradiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurosurgical Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyelographyImaging phantomIntrathecalSubtractionCerebrospinal fluidFistulaContrast (vision)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic myelography, performed as digital subtraction myelography or dynamic computed tomography myelography, is crucial in diagnosing intracranial hypotension resulting from a cerebrospinal fluid-venous fistula (CVF). The quality of the myelogram is paramount for accurate diagnosis. Using a phantom, the impact of needle type (Quincke vs. Whitacre), caliber, side-hole position, and rate of injection on the quality of the myelogram was determined. The ideal decubitus myelogram would provide a large volume of a hyperdense contrast within the lateral dependent aspect of the thecal sac, optimally flooding the mouths of the neural foramina and root sleeves where the vast majority of CVFs originate. The results of this study suggest it is exclusively the rate of injection that most predictably dictates the quality of the myelogram in this regard. Specifically, a slow injection rate, on the order of 0.1 mL/s, should be opted for to decrease turbulence, optimize myelogram quality, and thus improve CVF detection in 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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventional NeuroradiologySame topicNeurosurgical Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207