MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077442450 · doi:10.1002/art.22543

Hydrocephalus and macrocephaly: New manifestations of neonatal lupus erythematosus

2007· article· en· W2077442450 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christina Boros, Dawn Spence, Susan Blasér, Earl D. Silverman

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMacrocephalyHydrocephalusPediatricsCohortPopulationPhysical examinationCohort studyProspective cohort studyConfidence intervalSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Neurologic involvement has been reported to occur in infants with neonatal lupus erythematosus (NLE), although the significance of these findings is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine if hydrocephalus/macrocephaly is a manifestation of NLE. METHODS: Infants from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada whose mothers had anti-Ro antibodies were followed prospectively. A total of 87 infants were seen in the study period (1999-2004). The maternal autoantibody status of all infants was documented, and all infants underwent full clinical examination at each visit. RESULTS: Of the 87 infants, 47 had NLE. Five of the 47 infants with NLE and 2 of the healthy infants had hydrocephalus, resulting in a prevalence of 8.0% (95% confidence interval 4.0-15.0%) in the entire cohort. This is significantly higher than the prevalence in the general population of 0.048-0.081%. Head circumference measurements of infants in the Toronto cohort were largest between 12-24 months of age (Z score difference = 0.71, P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: We suggest that hydrocephalus and macrocephaly are manifestations of NLE and that infants born to mothers with anti-Ro antibodies should be carefully monitored for hydrocephalus as part of their routine physical examination.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations94
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207