Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 54-year-old woman was referred to our emergency department by an out-of-hours general practitioner. Her friend, who accompanied her, gave the history. She had been forgetful and anxious for two weeks, first noticed the day after her return from a bridge-playing holiday. She constantly checked the clothes she was wearing, had forgotten that she had recently had solar panels fitted to the roof of her house, and that she had been on holiday. She had had one episode of visual disturbance a few days before admission; although unable to describe her symptoms in detail, she had consulted an optician who had found a left superior homonymous quadrantanopia (she brought the results of her visual field test with her). She had a history of hypertension, treated with losartan and hydrochlorthiazide, and was an ex-smoker. She had recently retired from a professional career in continental Europe. On examination she was hypertensive (160/100 mmHg) and had a left superior homonymous quadrantanopia. She was in discomfort from low back pain, which her friend had not mentioned. She scored 27/30 on a Folstein’s mini-mental status examination losing points on recall, day and year. The rest of the physical examination was normal. Urgent blood tests revealed normal urea and electrolytes, full blood count and glucose, with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 21 mm/h and alkaline phosphatase of 142 units/l (normal range 40–125 units/l). An electrocardiograph showed sinus rhythm and her chest x ray was normal. We requested a CT brain scan without contrast. Figures 1 and 2 show the significant abnormalities. Figure 1 Figure 2 ### Question 1 How would you interpret her …
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".