MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095811522

STENOTIC AND OBSTRUCTIVE LESIONS

2016· article· en· W7095811522 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStenosisMiddle cerebral arteryCerebral infarctionLesionStroke (engine)OcclusionOutpatient clinicInfarction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This was a retrospective analysis of 12 consecutive cases of middle cerebral artery stenosis and 9 consecutive cases of middle cerebral artery occlusion that presented to our hospital with acute cerebral ischemia. The degree and area of the cerebral infarctions were assessed with the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) and ASPECTS-DWI (APSECTS with assessment of white matter lesion using diffusion-weighted image). As for cerebral infarctions in the region of the perforating artery, lesions that were more than 20 mm long in the caudal-cranial direction were diagnosed as branch atheromatous disease (BAD). Activities of daily living (ADL) were poorer in the cases with lower ASPECTS and ASPECTS-DWI. ADL tended to be worse in cases with BAD than in those without. The prognosis was significantly poorer in the group with ASPECTS≤7 points. ASPECTS tended to be lower in cases with BAD than in those without. ADL, ASPECTS and the presence of BAD were not significantly different between the stenosis and obstruction groups. In summary, the neurological prognosis was dependent on the extent of the cerebral infarction and was related to BAD to some extent. These findings will be important when considering medical treatment at the outpatient clinic setting.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→