MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972273191 · doi:10.1002/oa.638

Confirmation of the presence of <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i> complex‐specific DNA in three archaeological specimens

2002· article· en· W1972273191 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Spigelman, Carney Matheson, Galit Lev, Charles L. Greenblatt, Helen D. Donoghue

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Osteoarchaeology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAncient DNAPaleopathologyMycobacterium tuberculosis complexAmpliconTuberculosisMycobacterium tuberculosisBiologyArchaeologyHistoryPolymerase chain reactionMedicineGeneticsPathologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This journal published the first reported identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTB) DNA in ancient human remains but concerns were raised about the article two years after publication. These were based on methodology which, in the field of ancient DNA, was still developing. Here we present a re‐examination of the 1993 research conducted on three specimens which exhibited palaeopathologies indicative of tuberculosis. The specimens were: an ulna from pre‐European‐contact Borneo, a spine from Byzantine Turkey, and a lumbar‐sacral spine from 17th century Scotland. There was insufficient material to permit re‐examination of all of the original samples. The earlier results were confirmed in two independent laboratories using different methodologies. MTB DNA complex‐specific DNA amplicons were obtained, and sequenced in both laboratories, in a re‐analysis of samples which supported the earlier findings. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of OsteoarchaeologySame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207