MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1881534980 · doi:10.1093/pch/13.2.121a

Case 2: Long-standing neuropathy with acute onset of weakness

2008· article· en· W1881534980 on OpenAlexaff
Aleksandra Mineyko, Pierre Jacob

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHereditary Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAuntPresentation (obstetrics)Physical examinationWeaknessSurgeryPes cavusFamily historyNeurological examinationPediatricsPhysical therapyComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 16-year-old girl with presumed Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease presented to the emergency department with an acute onset of lower limb weakness. She was unable to walk where previously she had been fully ambulatory. One month before presentation, she had a three-week history of abdominal pain. Five days before presentation, she developed bilateral shoulder and upper back pain. The morning of her presentation, she had difficulty getting up off the floor and getting in and out of the bathtub. She reported that her legs were numb and ‘wobbly’. She had no presyncopal symptoms. She denied urinary incontinence. Bowel dysfunction was difficult to assess because she usually stooled once per week. She had no fevers or night sweats. Her history was significant for orthopaedic surgeries. She was followed for bilateral pes cavus deformities and progressive right foot varus deformity for which she had required surgery several years earlier. Her presumed diagnosis of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease was based on her orthopaedic findings and her family history. Her mother, maternal aunt and other relatives on her mother's side had been diagnosed by genetic testing. The patient herself had not had genetic testing and was not followed by a neurologist at the time of presentation. As a result, her premorbid neurological examination was unknown.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicHereditary Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207