MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537286876 · doi:10.25011/cim.v33i3.13720

Are serum levels of trace elements in children with auditory neuropathy within normal limits? A pilot study

2010· article· en· W1537286876 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nuray Bayar Muluk, Fulya Yalçınkaya, Osman Kürşat Arıkan, Özden Çiftçi Çirpar, Sedat Kaygusuz

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicTrace Elements in Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSodiumPotassiumMedicineZincCalciumTrace elementMagnesiumPhosphorusInternal medicineReference rangePhysiologyEtiologyGastroenterologyEndocrinologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether trace elements that are essential for neural function play a role in the pathophysiology and etiology of auditory neuropathy (AN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with auditory neuropathy consisted of eight children (two male, six female). The blood tests including the measurement of sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, phosphorus, iron, copper and magnesium were done in children with AN during their routine care. RESULTS: Of the eight children with AN, many had serum levels outside the normal range: one had low sodium, two had low potassium, one had low chloride, two had high zinc and three had low zinc, two had low calcium and two had higher than normal phosphorus. CONCLUSION: Although some serum trace element levels in our patients were higher or lower than normal values, the mean values were within normal limits. Thus, we were unable to detect a relationship between serum trace element levels and AN-. In the future, larger studies should be conducted to confirm these findings.

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)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicTrace Elements in HealthFrench-language works237,207