MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068565521 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100001505

Progress in Clinical Neurosciences: The Evidence for ALS as a Multisystems Disorder of Limited Phenotypic Expression

2001· review· en· W2068565521 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Michael J. Strong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersALS Society of CanadaALS Association
KeywordsAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisNeurodegenerationNeurosciencePhenotypeBiologyDiseaseDegeneration (medical)SOD1C9orf72GeneticsTrinucleotide repeat expansionMedicineGeneAllelePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is considered to be a unique neurodegeneration disorder in which motor neurons are selectively vulnerable to a single disease process. Our current understanding of ALS, however, suggests that this is far too limited an approach. While motor neuron degeneration remains the central component to this process, there is considerable phenotypic variability including broad ranges in survivorship and the presence or absence of cognitive impairment. The number of familial variants of ALS for which unique genetic linkage has been identified is increasing, attesting further to the biological heterogeneity of the disorder. At the cellular level, derangements in cytoskeletal protein and glutamate metabolism, mitochondrial function, and in glial interactions are clearly evident. When considered in this fashion, ALS can be justifiably considered a disorder of multiple biological processes sharing in common the degeneration of motor neurons.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations73
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207