MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145723050

Hemochromatosis. More common than you think.

2003· article· en· W2145723050 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Borgaonkar

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIron Metabolism and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemochromatosisPhlebotomyHereditary hemochromatosisTransferrin saturationIntensive care medicineGenetic testingMEDLINECirrhosisPediatricsDiseaseObservational studyRandomized controlled trialBioinformaticsInternal medicineIron deficiencyAnemia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review current knowledge of the genetics, presentation, diagnosis, and management of hereditary hemochromatosis. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE was searched from January 1966 to June 2002, and references of relevant papers were reviewed. Most articles were reviews, practice guidelines, or observational studies. Several randomized controlled trials were identified but none studied primary therapy for hemochromatosis. MAIN MESSAGE: Hemochromatosis, the most common genetic disease in white populations, has a prevalence of one in 200, yet is still underrecognized. This disease of unregulated iron absorption leads to generalized iron overload that can eventually impair organ systems and lead to cirrhosis, diabetes, and cardiomyopathy. Symptoms are often nonspecific and patients are identified by mild abnormalities in routine laboratory testing. Transferrin saturation, ferritin levels, and genotyping can often establish the diagnosis. Iron depletion therapy with phlebotomy is helpful if initiated before organ damage occurs. CONCLUSION: Family physicians should be aware that hemochromatosis can be treated effectively if diagnosed early.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicIron Metabolism and DisordersFrench-language works237,207