MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135169091 · doi:10.1189/jlb.0505253

Cytokine responses and sudden infant death syndrome: genetic, developmental, and environmental risk factors

2005· review· en· W2135169091 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C. Caroline Blackwell, Sophia M. Moscovis, Ann E. Gordon, Osama M. Al Madani, Sharron Hall, Maree Gleeson, Rodney J. Scott, June Roberts-Thomson, D. M. Weir, A. Busuttil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Leukocyte Biology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Newcastle AustraliaBabes in Arms
KeywordsBiologySudden infant death syndromeCytokineImmunologyPediatricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the success of the campaigns to reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), it still remains the major cause of postneonatal mortality. The incidence of SIDS is higher among ethnic groups in which there are also high incidences of serious infectious diseases. The risk factors for SIDS parallel those for susceptibility to infection, and recent data have provided evidence to support the mathematical model of the common bacterial toxin hypothesis. One current hypothesis for the etiology of SIDS is that the deaths are a result of overwhelming proinflammatory responses to bacterial toxins; as in inflammatory responses to sepsis, cytokines, induced by bacterial toxins, cause physiological changes leading to death. The genetic, developmental, and environmental risk factors for SIDS are reviewed in relation to colonization by potentially harmful bacteria and the inflammatory responses induced in the nonimmune infant to microorganisms or their products.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations91
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Leukocyte BiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207