MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151160398 · doi:10.1586/17469899.2014.922874

Does this optic neuritis patient have neuromyelitis optica? An approach to optic neuritis in the context of neuromyelitis optica

2014· article· en· W2151160398 on OpenAlexaff
Jodie Burton, Fiona Costello

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Ophthalmology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptic neuritisMedicineNeuromyelitis opticaMultiple sclerosisContext (archaeology)Demyelinating diseaseDiseasePathologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optic neuritis is a common presentation of demyelinating disease, most often associated with multiple sclerosis, and typically associated with a relatively good recovery and prognosis. However, when optic neuritis is the heralding event of neuromyelitis optica (NMO), it is much more likely to be the start of a devastating and disabling chronic disease with a reduced lifespan. Early recognition of NMO is the best chance a patient has of avoiding life-altering disability, as relapse prevention is essentially disability prevention because this disease, unlike MS, does not really have a progressive component. The following review was written to assist the clinician, particularly the ophthalmologist, in assessing optic neuritis in evaluating and recognizing the potential NMO patient.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of OphthalmologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207