MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145348416 · doi:10.4021/jocmr1191w

Nanoduct Sweat Conductivity Measurements in 2664 Patients: Relationship to Age, Arterial Blood Gas, Serum Electrolyte Profiles and Clinical Diagnosis

2013· article· en· W2145348416 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rabia Gönül Sezer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSWEATSweat testCystic fibrosisConductivityInternal medicineGastroenterologyFamily history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Nanoduct(®) device has acceptable diagnostic accuracy, but there is not enough systematic data supporting its usage in the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with an indication for the sweat test was conducted. The conductivity test was repeated in patients who had values higher than 60 mmol/L, and they were referred for sweat chloride measurements. Associations between sweat conductivity measurements and age, gender, (pH, HCO(3), pCO(2), Na, K, Cl), family history, consanguinity, indications for the test and number of hospitalization were studied. RESULTS: Among 2,664 patients, 16 children had sweat conductivity values higher than 80. The median age of patients diagnosed with CF was 4 months old. Age, pH, HCO(3), Na, Cl, K and the sweat conductivity test were statistically related (P < 0.001). The ROC curve showed very high agreement between the 2nd conductivity test and the sweat test. CONCLUSIONS: Patients suspected to have CF can be screened using the Nanoduct(®) conductivity device in non-qualified centers.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207