MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diagnostic criteria for schwannomatosis

2005· review· en· W2143617564 on OpenAlex
Mia MacCollin, E. Antonio Chiocca, D. Gareth Evans, Jan M. Friedman, R. Horvitz, Diego Jaramillo, Michael H. Lev, Victor F. Mautner, Michihito Niimura, Scott R. Plotkin, Christine N. Sang, Anat Stemmer‐Rachamimov, E. Steve Roach

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

VenueNeurology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSchwannomaNeurofibromatosisNeurofibromatosesNeurofibromatosis type 2NeurofibromaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neurofibromatoses are a diverse group of genetic conditions that share a predisposition to the development of tumors of the nerve sheath. Schwannomatosis is a recently recognized third major form of neurofibromatosis (NF) that causes multiple schwannomas without vestibular tumors diagnostic of NF2. Patients with schwannomatosis represent 2.4 to 5% of all patients requiring schwannoma resection and approximately one third of patients with schwannomatosis have anatomically localized disease with tumors limited to a single limb or segment of spine. Epidemiologic studies suggest that schwannomatosis is as common as NF2, but that familial occurrence is inexplicably rare. Patients with schwannomatosis overwhelmingly present with pain, and pain remains the primary clinical problem and indication for surgery. Diagnostic criteria for schwannomatosis are needed for both clinicians and researchers, but final diagnostic certainly will await the identification of the schwannomatosis locus itself.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.298 · 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