MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155274533 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a1791

Diffuse White Matter Damage Is Absent in Neuromyelitis Optica

2009· article· en· W2155274533 on OpenAlexaff
F. Aboul‐Enein, Martin Krššák, Romana Höftberger, Daniela Prayer, Wolfgang Kristoferitsch

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsNeuromyelitis opticaMedicineMultiple sclerosisTransverse myelitisWhite matterMyelitisPathologySpinal cordCreatineExpanded Disability Status ScaleOptic neuritisMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineRadiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) is an idiopathic mostly relapsing inflammatory disease with attacks on the optic nerves and spinal cord. Whether NMO is a separate disease or a subtype of classic multiple sclerosis (MS) is unclear. Clinically, CSF and MR imaging parameters and histopathologic data suggest that the normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) may be affected in MS but not in patients with NMO. Therefore, we hypothesized that the NAWM in NMO is normal. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied prospectively 8 patients with clinically definitive NMO or remitting longitudinal extensive transverse myelitis (LETM) and 8 healthy controls. Ratios of N-acetylaspartate to creatine (Cr) and choline to Cr and the absolute concentrations of the metabolites were measured by chemical shift imaging with a (1)H-MR spectroscopy operating at 3T. All patients with clinically definitive NMO and LETM were found to be positive for NMO-immunoglobin G with a commercially available test. RESULTS: The metabolic pattern of the NAWM of patients with NMO showed no difference compared with age- and sex-matched healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: Diffuse white matter damage is absent in NMO.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations55
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207