MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065277641 · doi:10.14740/jnr.v4i5-6.321

Ocular Oscillations and Transient Oscillopsia in Neuromyelitis Optica

2014· article· en· W2065277641 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nitin Nema, Abha Verma, Urvija Choudhary, Pramod Sakhi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuromyelitis opticaOscillopsiaMedicineNystagmusOptic neuritisMultiple sclerosisSpinal cordOphthalmologyAudiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) is a chronic relapsing and disabling disease. It typically causes inflammatory destruction of optic nerve as well as spinal cord that ultimately leads to blindness and paraplegia, respectively. It is more commonly seen in females who are in late thirties and seropositive for anti-NMO-IgG autoantibodies. Ocular movement disorders form an important clinical sign of multiple sclerosis (MS). They are less commonly described in NMO and represent an overt or an occult pathology of brainstem. These ocular movement disturbances generally improve with treatment. However, oscillopsia, with or without nystagmus, is a less reported symptom of NMO that appears early during the course of disease. We are reporting a patient in whom the diagnosis of NMO was made only after the full evolution of the disease, because of the misconception that a closer association exists between MS and optic neuritis and nystagmus. Oscillopsia manifested late during the relapse in this case and disappeared on disease remission although nystagmus persisted throughout the course of disease. We recommend that in patients having nystagmus and optic neuritis a possibility of NMO must be kept in mind. J Neurol Res. 2014;4(5-6):146-150 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jnr308e

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology ResearchSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207