MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119426740 · doi:10.1136/lupus-2015-000087

A highlight from the LUPUS 2014 meeting: eight great ideas

2015· review· en· W2119426740 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jill P. Buyon, Phillip Cohen, Joan T. Merrill, Gary S. Gilkeson, Mariana J. Kaplan, Judith A. James, W. Joseph McCune, Sasha Bernatsky, Keith B. Elkon

Bibliographic record

VenueLupus Science & Medicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineHydroxychloroquineSystemic lupus erythematosusBench to bedsideInflammasomeIntensive care medicineImmunologyDiseaseInternal medicineInflammationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Medical physicsInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review describes eight 'great ideas' regarding bench-to-bedside considerations in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) presented at the second international LUPUS meeting in Quebec, September 2014. The topics included: correcting the impaired clearance of apoptotic fragments; optimisation of clinical trial design: the PERFECT (Pre Evaluation Reducing Frighteningly Elevated Coverable Targets) study; lipidomics and metabolomics in SLE; importance of the inflammasome; identification and treatment of asymptomatic autoimmunity: prevention of SLE; combining low doses of hydroxychloroquine and quinacrine for long-term maintenance therapy of SLE; reducing emergency room visits and the critical relevance of the autoantigen.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLupus Science & MedicineSame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207