MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036300573 · doi:10.1097/mnh.0b013e328354a62e

Shiga toxin-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome

2012· review· en· W2036300573 on OpenAlexafffund
Tania N. Petruzziello-Pellegrini, Philip A. Marsden

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & Hypertension · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEscherichia coli research studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDiseaseShiga toxinMedicineDiarrheaOutbreakIntensive care medicineImmunologyBiologyVirologyEscherichia coliPathologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diarrhea-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) caused by Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) continues to be an important public health threat worldwide. Specific therapies are lacking and patient care remains largely supportive. This review discusses the lessons learned from recent events and summarizes key advances made toward understanding the basic mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of typical HUS. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent German outbreak of a hybrid organism resulted in an unprecedented number of HUS cases and drastically changed the face of typical (diarrhea-associated) HUS. New findings on the roles of complement and the CXCR4/SDF-1 pathway in HUS pathogenesis are summarized and novel therapeutic strategies are highlighted. SUMMARY: A better understanding of STEC-mediated HUS underlies improved therapeutic approaches. New studies of the mechanistic basis of the disease, together with patient-based studies, have led to key findings with important clinical implications.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & HypertensionSame topicEscherichia coli research studiesFrench-language works237,207