MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996292804 · doi:10.3109/09273948.2013.791700

Lacrimal Gland Uptake of <sup>67</sup> Ga-gallium Citrate Correlates with Biopsy Results in Patients with Suspected Sarcoidosis

2013· article· en· W1996292804 on OpenAlexaff
Bradford Tannen, Anton M. Kolomeyer, Roger E. Turbin, Larry Frohman, Paul D. Langer, Cheongeun Oh, Nasrin Ghesani, Lionel S. Zuckier, David Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueOcular Immunology and Inflammation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoidosis and Beryllium Toxicity Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcoidosisLacrimal glandBiopsyGalliumPathologyRadiologyGastroenterologyInternal medicineMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate whether lacrimal gland uptake on (67)Ga-gallium citrate scintigraphy correlates with histopathologic evidence of sarcoidosis. METHODS: A retrospective, pilot study of 31 patients with suspected sarcoidosis who underwent gallium scintigraphy and lacrimal gland biopsy. Lacrimal gland gallium uptake was assessed by subjective visual scoring (SVS) and lacrimal uptake ratio (LUR). RESULTS: Eleven (36%) patients had lacrimal gland biopsies containing noncaseating granulomas. A statistically significant correlation was found between lacrimal gland gallium uptake and biopsy positivity using SVS (p = 0.03) or LUR (p = 0.01). Using SVS, biopsy positivity rate increased from 0 to 50% in patients with mild to intense uptake. Using LUR, biopsy positivity rate increased linearly as the ratio increased from 13% (LUR < 4) to 100% (LUR > 8). CONCLUSIONS: Lacrimal biopsy positivity rate significantly correlated with gallium uptake on scintigraphy. Both SVS and LUR methods appear to correlate with histologic results and may potentially aid in patient selection for biopsy.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcular Immunology and InflammationSame topicSarcoidosis and Beryllium Toxicity ResearchFrench-language works237,207