MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085652675 · doi:10.4021/jnr.v2i2.91

Blindness or Agnosia: Review of Posterior Cortical Atrophy and a Difficult Case

2012· article· en· W2085652675 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bo Biering‐Sørensen, Moa Gustafsson, Jesper Gyllenborg, Ian Law, Peter Høgh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosterior cortical atrophyMedicineVisual agnosiaCortical blindnessAtrophyAgnosiaNeuropsychologyNeuroimagingGlaucomaAmnesiaCognitionOphthalmologyDiseaseBlindnessNeuroscienceDementiaAudiologyPathologyPsychologyPsychiatryOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Objective was to brie fly review the rare condition Posterior Cortical Atrophy (PCA) and demonstrate a difficult case suffering from both visual disturbances due to glaucoma and visual agnosia due to PCA. The short review was made by Pub Med search including “Posterior Cortical Atrophy” and the reference lists from the obtained articles were scrutinized for relevant literature not retrieved from PubMed. PCA is a slowly progressing neurodegenerative disorder that is very disabling due to disturbances of higher visual functions, although memory might be relatively preserved until late in the course. Some previous authors have underscored, that to diagnose a patient with PCA one must rule out that the patient is suffering from an eye disease. We demonstrate a difficult case suffering from both glaucoma and PCA. The diagnostic characteristics for PCA are described, and neuroimaging including positron emission tomography (PET) with the amyloid binding ligand (11C) Pittsburgh compound B (PiB), and results from treatment of PCA are presented. Caution should be advised when patients with impaired visual acuity develop signs of cognitive dysfunction, and a full neuropsychological examination should be performed whenever there is doubt of the significance of visual impairment and impaired visuospatial functions. doi:10.4021/jnr91w

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology ResearchSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207