MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145395161 · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2014.224378

Multiple Cerebrospinal Fluid Bands with Accompanying Serum Bands

2014· article· en· W2145395161 on OpenAlexaff
Yu Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA regulation and disease
Canadian institutionsHorizon Health NetworkDr. Everett Chalmers Regional HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunofixationCerebrospinal fluidIsoelectric focusingMultiple sclerosisPathologyImmunoassayIsoelectric pointCerebrospinal fluid proteinsMedicineChemistryImmunologyAntibodyBiochemistryMonoclonal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 61-year-old man was being assessed for multiple sclerosis. His paired cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and serum samples were sent to the clinical biochemistry laboratory for oligoclonal band analysis by CSF isoelectric focusing and IgG immunofixation (Fig. 1). Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease immunoassay panel with CSF 14-3-3, tau, and S100B proteins was negative. ... ... The answers are on the next page. Multiple IgG bands present in CSF but not in serum are diagnostic of oligoclonal bands, consistent with multiple sclerosis. Prominent serum bands triggered serum protein electrophoresis and immunofixation, which revealed coexisting IgG-kappa monoclonal protein (2.4 g/L). This pattern, multiple CSF bands with some accompanying serum bands, should be differentiated from the pattern of multiple similar CSF and serum bands present in systemic inflammation (1) and from monoclonal gammopathy, where 1 or 2 identical bands are found in CSF and serum (2). In addition, the serum bands in systemic inflammation tend to be small and evenly distributed (3).

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicRNA regulation and diseaseFrench-language works237,207