MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Finding NMO

2008· letter· en· W2088397537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Levy, Julius Birnbaum, Douglas A. Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuromyelitis opticaMedicineTransverse myelitisAcute disseminated encephalomyelitisOptic neuritisMultiple sclerosisPediatricsMyelitisSpinal cordPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the discovery in 2004 of NMO-IgG, the autoantibody associated with neuromyelitis optica (NMO),1 neurologists are increasingly relying on the NMO-IgG test to rule in or rule out NMO. Related disorders like optic neuritis (ON), transverse myelitis (TM), acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), and longitudinally extensive TM (LETM; ≥3 spinal cord vertebral segments) can all be monophasic or multiphasic, can occur together or individually, and can occur in adults or children. Similarly, multiple sclerosis (MS) is often confused with these disorders, especially early in the disease. But little is known about the prevalence of NMO-IgG in children presenting with these disorders. In the current issue of Neurology ®, Dr. Banwell at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada, along with colleagues in Argentina and Montreal, and Dr. Pittock and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, aim to determine the seroprevalence of NMO-IgG in children with NMO and related disorders.2 This is the first published characterization of NMO-IgG seroprevalence in children and includes 87 patients with NMO, TM, ON, ADEM +TM, and MS from two centers, Toronto and Buenos Aires. Diagnoses were based on well-established clinical and radiologic criteria, and clinicians were blinded to the NMO-IgG status for the purpose of this study. The results …

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207