MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572224393 · doi:10.5772/39039

Update on IgM Nephropathy

2012· book-chapter· en· W1572224393 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I. Javed, Muhammed Mubarak

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesangiumNephrotic syndromeFocal segmental glomerulosclerosisMinimal change diseaseGlomerulusPathologyNephropathyRenal biopsyMedicineNephrosisGlomerulosclerosisDiseaseEtiologyGlomerulonephritisImmunologyBiopsyProteinuriaInternal medicineKidneyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

backgroundAlthough, it is widely believed that this lesion was described for the first time in 1978 by two independent research groups led by Cohen (1978), andBhasin (1978) in patients presenting with heavy proteinuria, the deposits of predominant IgM in the glomeruli, in fact, were first described in renal biopsies in 1974 by Putte et al. (1974) in patients presenting with persistent or recurrent hematuria.Soon after the formal recognition of the disease as a distinct entity in 1978, many series were reported on the disease mostly from USA, UK, other countries of Europe, and South East Asia (Al-Eisa et al., 1996;Cavalo & Johnson, 1981; www.intechopen.com How to referenceIn order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to copy and paste the following: Javed I. Kazi and Muhammed Mubarak (2012).Update on IgM Nephropathy, Topics in Renal Biopsy and Pathology, Dr. Muhammed Mubarak (Ed.),

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.008

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicRenal Diseases and GlomerulopathiesFrench-language works237,207