MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118822243 · doi:10.1001/archneur.63.6.851

Neuromyelitis Optica in Patients With Myasthenia Gravis Who Underwent Thymectomy

2006· article· en· W2118822243 on OpenAlexaff
Ilya Kister, Sandeep Gulati, Cavit Boz, Roberto Bergamaschi, G. Piccolo, Joël Oger, Michael Swerdlow

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Neurology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyasthenia Gravis and Thymoma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyasthenia gravisThymectomyMedicineNeuromyelitis opticaPopulationCohortAutoimmunityPediatricsDiseaseImmunologyInternal medicineMultiple sclerosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis (MG) and neuromyelitis optica (NMO, also known as Devic disease) are rare autoimmune disorders, with upper-limit prevalence estimates in the general population of 15 per 100,000 and 5 per 100,000, respectively. To our knowledge, an association between these diseases has not been previously reported. OBJECTIVES: To describe 4 patients with MG who developed NMO after thymectomy and to analyze possible causes of apparent increased prevalence of NMO among patients with MG. DESIGN: Case series. PATIENTS: Four patients with MG who underwent thymectomy. INTERVENTIONS: None. RESULTS: The prevalence of MG within the published cohort of patients with NMO is more than 150 times higher than that in the general population. CONCLUSION: Dysregulation of B-cell autoimmunity in myasthenia, possibly exacerbated by loss of control over autoreactive cells as a result of thymectomy, may predispose patients to the development of NMO.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
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

Citations77
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of NeurologySame topicMyasthenia Gravis and ThymomaFrench-language works237,207