MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029552789 · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2005.056382

Diagnostic Biomarkers for Stroke: A Stroke Neurologist’s Perspective

2005· letter· en· W2029552789 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)Subarachnoid hemorrhageIntracerebral hemorrhageMedicineNeurologyIschemic strokeComputed tomographicIntensive care medicineCardiologyIschemiaInternal medicineComputed tomographySurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2003, four articles on stroke biomarkers as potential diagnostic tests have been published in Clinical Chemistry (1)(2)(3)(4). Each has described an initial foray into attempting to find a holy grail in clinical stroke—a blood test for stroke—and each has provided early exciting results that suggest that we may yet welcome a new era of stroke diagnostics into the clinical realm. Human stroke is remarkably heterogeneous. Stroke varies widely in severity with a majority of strokes being mild. Stroke comes in 3 major types. In North America and Europe, ischemic stroke comprises 85% of all strokes, intracerebral hemorrhage 8%, and subarachnoid hemorrhage 7%. These ratios differ in Asia with up to 30% of strokes occurring as intracerebral hemorrhages. For the neurologist, stroke is relatively easy to diagnose clinically. It is the most common cause of a sudden acute neurologic deficit in both adults and children. Imaging is the mainstay of identifying stroke type because it is not possible to distinguish ischemia from hemorrhage reliably on clinical grounds alone.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0320.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207