Comparison of sensitivity and specificity among 15 criteria for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There have been 15 formal sets of criteria published for the diagnosis of CIDP. No study to date has compared the sensitivity and specificity of all published criteria in the same patient population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with CIDP (n = 56) and controls with diabetic polyneuropathy (n = 37) or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (n = 39) who were followed in an academic neuromuscular practice. The sensitivity and specificity of each CIDP criterion was calculated, including clinical, laboratory, and electrodiagnostic components. RESULTS: Sensitivities ranged from 1.8% to 87.5%; the Dyck (87.5%), Neuropathy Association (75%), and European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS; 73.2%) criteria ranked highest. Specificities ranged from 65.6% to 100% and, among the 3 most sensitive criteria, the EFNS (90.8%) and Neuropathy Association (82.9%) criteria were most specific. CONCLUSIONS: In our patient population, the EFNS and Neuropathy Association criteria stand out due to high sensitivity and specificity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it