MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129033311 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.130001

Criteria for Gout Diagnosis?

2013· letter· en· W2129033311 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eliseo Pascual, Mariano Andrés, Paloma Vela

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric Acid
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGoutMedicineChondrocalcinosisPseudogoutDiseaseUric acidRheumatologyCalcium pyrophosphateSynovial fluidInternal medicinePathologyOsteoarthritisAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diagnosis is the proper classification of an individual patient. Efforts to develop clinical criteria for the classification of gout, which are often used to diagnose individual patients, continue, as the article by Prowse, et al shows in this issue of The Journal 1. A proper approach to gout diagnosis implies that, if possible, (1) all patients presenting with the disease have to be properly diagnosed, and (2) in all cases the diagnosis must be correct, so gout does not go undetected and is not misclassified. Gout results from monosodium urate (MSU) crystal deposition, which is responsible for all clinical consequences of the disease. MSU crystals are large enough to be easily detected and identified by an ordinary microscope fitted with polarized filters, which clearly shows the highly birefringent MSU crystals shining on the dark microscope field. The addition of a first-order red compensator helps in definitive distinction from calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) and other crystals2. Crystals form as a result of elevated serum uric acid (SUA) levels; they slowly dissolve and finally disappear when SUA levels are brought back to normal; thus, the disease is now considered curable3. Because it is associated with an elevated cardiovascular risk4 and, when advanced, can be very disabling, gout cannot be taken as a minor disease. MSU crystals are regularly present in synovial fluid … Address correspondence to Prof. E. Pascual, Rheumatology Section, Hospital General Universitario, Maestro Alonso 109, Alicante, 03010, Spain. E-mail: pascual_eli{at}gva.es

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)0.013
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.012

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric AcidFrench-language works237,207