MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135274328 · doi:10.1002/mus.21480

Clinical and electrophysiological parameters distinguishing acute‐onset chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy from acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy

2009· article· en· W2135274328 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathyMedicinePolyneuropathyPolyradiculoneuropathyWeaknessGuillain-Barre syndromeInternal medicineImmunologySurgeryAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Up to 16% of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) patients may present acutely. We performed a retrospective chart review on 30 acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) and 15 acute-onset CIDP (A-CIDP) patients looking for any clinical or electrophysiological parameters that might differentiate AIDP from acutely presenting CIDP. A-CIDP patients were significantly more likely to have prominent sensory signs. They were significantly less likely to have autonomic nervous system involvement, facial weakness, a preceding infectious illness, or need for mechanical ventilation. With regard to electrophysiological features, neither sural-sparing pattern, sensory ratio >1, nor the presence of A-waves was different between the two groups. This study suggests that patients presenting acutely with a demyelinating polyneuropathy and the aforementioned clinical features should be closely monitored as they may be more likely to have CIDP at follow-up.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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