MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146107672 · doi:10.25011/cim.v32i4.6622

Immunological disturbances in Good’s syndrome

2009· article· en· W2146107672 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Justyna Fijołek, Elżbieta Wiatr, Urszula Demkow, Tadeusz Maria Orlowsk

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyasthenia Gravis and Thymoma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThymomaImmunodeficiencyImmunophenotypingHypogammaglobulinemiaImmunologyCD5AntibodyCD19CD20PathologyAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Immunodeficiency with a thymoma (Good's syndrome) is a rare condition occurring in patients with adult-onset hypogammaglobulinaemia. CLINICAL REPORT: We describe the case of a 38-yr-old woman with an upper mediastinal mass and inflammatory infiltrations in the lungs. After thymectomy, the patient's condition did not improve. The HRCT scan showed bronchiectasies with parenchymal opacities. As pulmonary infection persisted despite wide spectrum antibiotic therapy, additional tests were performed to diagnose an immunodeficiency. Serum immunoglobulin levels were very low. T cell response to mitogens was normal, but to Staphylococcus aureus Cowan I was impaired. Immunophenotyping of peripheral blood and bone marrow aspirate showed a very low number of B-cell at all the stages of development (CD10+CD19+, CD5+CD20). In peripheral blood 2.5% of CD19+ lymphocytes were found. On the basis of clinical history and immunological analysis, Good's syndrome was recognized. Treatment with intravenous gammaglobulin and antibiotics improved the patient's performance. CONCLUSION: Measurement of serum immunoglobulin concentration is recommended for all patients suspected of thymoma.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicMyasthenia Gravis and ThymomaFrench-language works237,207