MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083251226 · doi:10.1002/mus.10043

Congenital inflammatory myopathy: A demonstrative case and proposed diagnostic classification

2002· review· en· W2083251226 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen McNeil, John Woulfe, Catherine Ross, Mark A. Tarnopolsky

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Myopathies and Dermatomyositis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreOttawa HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyopathyMedicineCongenital myopathyCongenital muscular dystrophyInflammatory myopathyMuscle biopsyMuscular dystrophyPathologyCreatine kinasePediatricsBiopsyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There have been few reports of congenital inflammatory myopathy in the literature, and most of these have been associated with congenital muscular dystrophy. We review the literature and present a case with electromyographic and muscle biopsy evidence of congenital inflammatory myopathy with onset in the perinatal period and no evidence of a congenital muscular dystrophy. There was evidence of subjective improvement following corticosteroid administration (approximately 1 mg/kg per day) with a concomitant normalization of the serum creatine kinase activity. Of particular interest in the case was the history of maternal infection, suggesting a possible postinfectious molecular mimicry as the etiology of the muscle inflammation. This case suggests that a rare form of congenital inflammatory myopathy does exist that is not associated with a congenital muscular dystrophy. A preliminary classification scheme is proposed to separate true congenital cases from those acquired after birth and those cases associated with congenital dystrophy.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicInflammatory Myopathies and DermatomyositisFrench-language works237,207