MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098167550 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100010301

Familial Occurrence of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

2010· article· en· W2098167550 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peyman Shirani, Ali Jawaid, Paolo Moretti, Elham Lahijani, Alicia R. Salamone, Paul E. Schulz, Everton A. Edmondson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplex regional pain syndromeEtiologyMedicineCohortFamily historyFamily aggregationMigrainePediatricsPhysical therapyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The etiology of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is unknown. Different environmental and genetic factors have been postulated to contribute to CRPS. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data from a cohort of 69 patients with CRPS. Four families were identified with two or more members affected with CRPS yielding a total of nine patients. Six more patients reported the presence of pain symptoms in their family members, however; this could not be clinically confirmed. RESULTS: The case histories of the nine individuals with 'familial' CRPS suggested a younger age at onset and more frequent history of migraine versus the non-familial patients. A pattern of inheritance could not be ascertained. CONCLUSION: This data supports the hypothesis that CRPS can be familial and hence may have a genetic basis in some families. Larger studies will be needed to ascertain clearer patterns of inheritance and to determine whether the clinical features of 'familial' CRPS are the same as the sporadic form.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207