MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996510251 · doi:10.1002/ana.1097

Potassium channel antibodies in two patients with reversible limbic encephalitis

2001· article· en· W1996510251 on OpenAlexaff
Camilla Buckley, Joël Oger, Linda Clover, Erdem Tüzün, Katherine Carpenter, Matthew Jackson, A. Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune Neurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimbic encephalitisThymomaMedicineAntibodyNeuromyotoniaAntigenEncephalitisImmunologyInternal medicinePathologyGastroenterologyAutoantibodyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limbic encephalitis (LE) is often associated with lung, thymic, or testicular tumours and antibodies to Hu, CV2, or Ma2 (Ta) antigens. In these cases, it generally has a poor prognosis. Here we describe two patients with symptoms of LE, negative for typical paraneoplastic antibodies, in whom antibodies to voltage-gated potassium channels (VGKC) were detected retrospectively in serial serum samples. Patient 1 had a thymoma recurrence, but in patient 2 no tumour has been detected in the years following presentation. Plasma exchange was effective in reducing VGKC antibody levels, with substantial improvement in mental symptoms in patient 1. In patient 2, the VGKC antibodies fell spontaneously over two years, with almost complete recovery of mental function. Although neither patient had obvious neuromyotonia at presentation, both showed excessive secretions. We suggest that patients with limbic symptoms and excessive secretions should be tested for VGKC antibodies, and, if they are present, prompt and effective immunosuppressive treatment should be considered.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations445
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of NeurologySame topicAutoimmune Neurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207