Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters5 December 2000Internuclear Ophthalmoplegia after Insecticide ExposureKatherine A. Kovacs, MDKatherine A. Kovacs, MDQueen's University; Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada (Kovacs)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-133-11-200012050-00030 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:A 54-year-old farmer experienced several days of headache after spraying dimethoate insecticide for 45 minutes on 4 June 1999 without wearing a mask. On 7 June, she awoke with foul breath and diplopia; the diplopia resolved briefly and then worsened. She visited an eye clinic on 11 June, where left internuclear ophthalmoplegia was diagnosed. The following day, she returned to the clinic reporting lethargy, malaise, nausea, and diarrhea and was referred to the internal medicine clinic. At that visit, on 18 June, she denied excessive lacrimation or salivation but noted having to eat frequently to avoid weakness ...References1. Tripathi AK, Misra UK. Ophthalmoplegia in dimethoate poisoning. J Assoc Physicians India. 1996;44:225. MedlineGoogle Scholar2. Wadia RS, Sadagopan C, Amin RB, Sardesai HV. Neurological manifestations of organophosphorous insecticide poisoning. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1974;37:841-7. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Queen's University; Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada (Kovacs) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byIntroduction to Anatomy and Neural Pathways 5 December 2000Volume 133, Issue 11Page: 926KeywordsAtaxiaInsecticideNauseaParalysisProteinsSalivationSaltsToxicityUreaVitamins ePublished: 5 December 2000 Issue Published: 5 December 2000 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2000 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".