MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transient cough-induced blindness in temporal arteritis

2006· article· en· W2028686931 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Kwong, Annie Daniel, Sanjay Kalra, Stephen Houston, S Aaron, Todd Chaba, Sumit R. Majumdar

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Immunology
KeywordsArteritisMedicineTransient (computer programming)BlindnessInternal medicineOptometryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 71-year-old previously healthy man, vacationing in Arizona, was admitted for a 1-month history of cough and progressive fatigue limiting his ambulation. With paroxysms of coughing, he described bilateral vision loss for 5 to 10 seconds. His vision grayed and “tunneled down” (i.e., from periphery to center) before blindness. Sometimes, he had transient bilateral blurring with “stars” but no diplopia. He denied presyncope. There was no hemoptysis, dyspnea, or pleurisy. He had no headache, scalp tenderness, jaw claudication, or morning stiffness, but had diffuse bone and muscle pains. He had constitutional symptoms including anorexia, night sweats, and 20-lb weight loss. Other than his Arizona holiday, his infectious contact and medical history was unremarkable. He had low risk of atherosclerosis: he was fit and a nonsmoker, had no family history, and had systolic pressures <135 mm Hg without bruits, low-density lipoprotein–cholesterol of 2.3 mmol/L, hemoglobin A1c of 5.8%, and normal baseline EKG. In hospital he had fevers from 38.7 to 40.4°. There was no lymphadenopathy or temporal artery tenderness. …

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207