MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971936334 · doi:10.1097/mop.0b013e3283402d4c

Diagnosing central nervous system vasculitis in children

2010· review· en· W1971936334 on OpenAlexaff
Tania Cellucci, Susanne M. Benseler

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pediatrics · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVasculitisIntensive care medicineCentral nervous systemPresentation (obstetrics)DiseaseObservational studyPediatricsPathologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the current literature of childhood central nervous system vasculitis, and to discuss a tailored approach to diagnosis and treatment based on recent evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: Primary angiitis of the central nervous system in children (cPACNS) is an increasingly recognized inflammatory brain disease with potentially devastating neurological consequences. The diagnostic approach should be tailored to the clinical presentation of the child with suspected cPACNS and should address the expanding spectrum of inflammatory and noninflammatory brain diseases with overlapping clinical features. New evidence has confirmed that elective brain biopsies in children have a higher diagnostic yield than in adults and improve our ability to diagnose angiography-negative cPACNS. Finally, observational studies have shown that early diagnosis and aggressive treatment lead to improved neurological outcomes and lower mortality rates in patients with cPACNS. SUMMARY: This review summarizes the recent data on diagnosis, classification, treatment, and outcomes in cPACNS. Our improved understanding of cPACNS facilitates a tailored diagnostic approach that results in earlier diagnosis and initiation of therapy for this potentially reversible condition.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations34
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PediatricsSame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207