Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: To review and describe findings, pathophysiology, and management of infantile Refsum disease in a young adult, and to compare with those of classic Refsum Disease. Methods: Retrospective chart and digital photography review. Results: A 25-year-old woman with a diagnosis of infantile Refsum disease presented with progressively decreasing vision. Findings included a noncorpuscular pigmentary degeneration of both fundi, optic nerve head drusen, attenuated retinal vasculature, cataract, myopia, and esotropia. She was treated with a low phytanic acid diet, resulting in improved metabolic values on laboratory testing. Conclusion: Infantile Refsum disease has clinical features and a pathophysiology distinct from classic Refsum disease, despite occasionally presenting for examination later in life. Ophthalmic and systemic distinctions between the two are important to consider for the ophthalmologist, who may be involved in the initial diagnosis of the patient. Infantile Refsum disease is a disorder of peroxisomal function and is distinct from classic Refsum disease. Differentiation based on ophthalmic findings can be challenging, but when combined with knowledge of the systemic manifestations of presentation, the ophthalmologist can be instrumental in guiding further investigations and diagnosis.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it