MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083334985 · doi:10.4021/jocmr2010.03.282w

Mycoplasma Pneumoniae and Chlamydia Pneumoniae Seropositivity in Patients With Age-Related Macular Degeneration

2010· article· en· W2083334985 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Burak Turgut

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMycoplasma pneumoniaeChlamydiaMacular degenerationAntibodyImmunologyInternal medicineOphthalmologyPneumonia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To determine a possible relation between Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP) or Chlamidia pneumoniae (CP) seropositivity and age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Sixty patients (20 wet AMD, 20 dry AMD and 20 non-AMD controls) were included in the study. Serum samples were collected for analysis of IgM and IgG antibody seropositivity for CP and MP by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Comparison of the distribution of seropositivity of these antibodies among patients with wet and dry AMD, and controls was performed. A prospective comparative clinical trial was applied. RESULTS: There was no major difference in the distribution of IgM and IgG seropositivity to CP and MP in patients with wet and dry AMD, and in controls (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant association between MP as well as CP antibody titers and AMD. It seems that MP or CP infection is not a risk factor for AMD. KEYWORDS: Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Chlamydia pneumoniae; Age-related macular degeneration; Serology.

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)0.004
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207