MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Looking forward—An evidence‐based approach to glutaryl‐CoA dehydrogenase deficiency

2004· review· en· W2033461021 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Kölker, Jürgen G. Okun, Andrea Schulze-Bergkamen, Birgit Assmann, C. R. Greenberg, Georg F. Hoffmann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Inherited Metabolic Disease · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicinePediatricsEtiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three decades after the first description of glutaryl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, major progress has been achieved in the prevention of acute striatal necrosis and neurological sequelae in affected children, if diagnosis is made early and treatment is started before manifestation of acute encephalopathic crises. However, all concepts for diagnostic work-up, monitoring, and treatment are solely experience-based, and 10-35% of early-diagnosed children do not or only incompletely benefit from the current management. They still develop neurological deterioration and sequelae despite early implementation of dietary treatment, carnitine supplementation and emergency treatment during acute intercurrent illnesses. International efforts should be made to move management of affected children from experience-based to evidence-based medicine. Major tools for this optimization are the establishment of an international patients' database, the implementation of an international prospective clinical study, and the development of international guidelines for diagnostic work-up, monitoring and therapy.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Inherited Metabolic DiseaseSame topicMetabolism and Genetic DisordersFrench-language works237,207