MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optic Neuropathy and Chiasmopathy in the Diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

2001· article· en· W2070960892 on OpenAlexaff
R. Michael Siatkowski, Ingrid U. Scott, Alan Verm, Ann Warn, Bradley K. Farris, Mitchell B. Strominger, Evelyn M. Sklar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuro-Ophthalmology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOptic neuropathyMagnetic resonance imagingAnti-nuclear antibodyOptic neuritisOptic nerveSystemic diseaseDermatologyRadiologyMultiple sclerosisInternal medicineAutoantibodyAntibodyOphthalmologyImmunopathologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report the clinical presentation of acute visual loss in six patients who were ultimately diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Retrospective case series. RESULTS: All patients had a positive antinuclear antibody and elevated anti-double stranded DNA titers. Five of six patients demonstrated gadolinium enhancement of the optic nerve and/or chiasm on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Most patients showed initial improvement after treatment with high-dose systemic corticosteroids, but five experienced recrudescences during steroid taper, requiring further treatment with immunosuppressive or cytotoxic medications. CONCLUSIONS: Visual loss owing to optic neuropathy or chiasmopathy may be the presenting sign of SLE or the event that leads to this diagnosis. Gadolinium-enhanced MRI is useful for identifying anterior visual pathway lesions in these patients. Corticosteroids are effective in the treatment of this condition; however, relapses requiring further treatment are common.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 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

Citations53
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuro-OphthalmologySame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207