MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041129529 · doi:10.1177/0883073812445908

Central Pontine and Extrapontine Myelinolysis in Children

2012· review· en· W2041129529 on OpenAlexafffund
Adrianna Ranger, Navjot Chaudhary, Michael B. Avery, Douglas D. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectrolyte and hormonal disorders
Canadian institutionsCARE CanadaWestern University
FundersLondon Health Sciences Centre
KeywordsCentral pontine myelinolysisPresentation (obstetrics)PediatricsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingAutopsyCase presentationRadiologyInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to identify the causes and contributing factors, neurologic presentation, and outcomes of central pontine and extrapontine myelinolysis and to examine any trends in the presentation and course of these disorders over the past 50 years. Seventy-six pediatric cases were identified in the literature. Age, sex, decade of diagnosis, neurologic presentation, outcome, and attributed causes were extracted. The results showed that the diagnosis, course, and outcomes of central pontine and extrapontine myelinolysis clearly have changed over the past few decades. Early cases generally were diagnosed at autopsy as opposed to computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging more recently. Ninety-four percent of cases prior to 1990 and only 7% of cases from 1990 onward resulted in patient mortality. The decade in which the case was reported was the strongest predictor of outcome (P < .001), followed by sodium dysregulation (P = .045) and dehydration (P = .07).

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicElectrolyte and hormonal disordersFrench-language works237,207