MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077723758 · doi:10.1167/iovs.13-12726

Retinal Segmentation as Noninvasive Technique to Demonstrate Hyperplasia in Ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay

2013· article· en· W2077723758 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elena García‐Martín, Luís E. Pablo, José Gazulla, A. Vela, José M. Larrosa, Vicente Polo, Marcia L. Marques, Jorge Alfaro

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationAtaxiaRetinalMedicineOptometryOphthalmologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To present a new retinal layer segmentation technique for evaluation of nerve fiber hyperplasia in patients with autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay (ARSACS). METHODS: Five patients with a molecular diagnosis of ARSACS and five age- and sex-matched healthy controls underwent a full ophthalmologic examination, which included a new technique to segment the retinal layers using Spectralis optical coherence tomography (OCT). Images and data were correlated with diffusion tensor color-encoded magnetic resonance imaging maps, diffusion tensor tractographies, and retinal anatomopathologic analysis. RESULTS: Optical coherence tomography evaluation revealed increased thickness in the internal layers of the retina (inner limiting membrane, nerve fiber layer, and ganglion cell layer) in each patient with ARSACS compared with controls. These findings suggest that the presence of neurofilamentous hyperplasia in the retinas of patients with ARSACS correlates with the anatomopathologic findings. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of ganglion cell and nerve fiber hyperplasia in the retinas of ARSACS patients. The etiopathogenic mechanisms of this disease thus require reconsideration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual ScienceSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207