MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005506189 · doi:10.1300/j092v07n03_07

Raised Plasma Adenosine Associated with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

2000· article· en· W2005506189 on OpenAlexaff
John A. Duley, D P Garrick, David A. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdenosineChronic fatigue syndromeVenipunctureMedicineVolunteerInternal medicineEndocrinologyAnesthesiaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plasma adenosine levels were measured in a small trial study of eighteen volunteers, aged 36-85 years. Volunteers comprised nine with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), four with ‘other fatigue’ illnesses, and five with no history of fatigue illnesses but some of whom were related to chronic fatigue sufferers. Plasma adenosine was slightly raised above the minimum detectable level (approx. 1 micromole/L) in one healthy non-fatigued volunteer and grossly raised (greater than 5 micromoles/L) in two non-fatigued volunteers, both of whom were related to CFSs. Among the nine CFSs, all had plasma adenosine raised above baseline, and seven were grossly raised. High adenosine levels were also seen in two of the volunteers with ‘other fatigue.’ Raised adenosine occurred among certain families, suggesting a genetic metabolic element. Instability of adenosine in frozen stored plasma was noted. High levels of adenosine probably do not exist freely within peripheral plasma but may be released from blood cells locally within tissues or in response to venipuncture stress or other factors. The results may be highly relevant to other pathologies such as heart disease.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.286
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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chronic Fatigue SyndromeSame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207