MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133073405

Investigating Tauopathy in Military Blast Exposure: A Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Study with the Tau Tracer [F-18] T807

2023· dissertation· W7133073405 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shamantha Jahan Lora

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTauopathyPositron emission tomographyChronic traumatic encephalopathyNeurocognitiveNeuroimagingPositronNeuromelanin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Long-term chronic traumatic encephalopathy is suspected to occur due to repetitive exposure to low-level military blast (LLMB). This dissertation tested the hypothesis that greater exposure to LLMB in Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members would be associated with greater tau aggregation. Methods: CAF members (n=25 males) exposed to blast overpressure completed a positron emission tomography (PET) scan using the radiotracer [F-18] T807 to quantitate tau levels, clinical questionnaires and a battery of neurocognitive tests. Results: [F-18] T807 SUVr in the temporal and whole brain cortices were positively correlated to years of breaching; taken as a measure of blast exposure. [F-18] T807 SUVr in whole brain cortices was related to depressive and post-concussive symptoms. Lastly, there was no significant association found between [F-18] T807 SUVr and cognitive function. Conclusion: Overall, findings indicate that brain tau-PET deposition in temporal and whole brain cortices are associated with dose-dependent exposure to LLMB, suggesting risk of tauopathy in individuals with high exposure.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→