MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162165514 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.121234

Dr. Mahler replies

2013· letter· en· W2162165514 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Mähler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Myopathies and Dermatomyositis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChemiluminescent immunoassayAutoantibodyCohortDermatomyositisAntibodyImmunologyImmunoassayInternal medicineCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: We thank Dr. Muro and colleagues for the thoughtful analysis1 of our study on anti-DFS70 (anti-dense fine speckled 70) antibodies in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD), disease controls, and apparently healthy individuals as measured by a novel chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA). The data on patients with dermatomyositis (DM) presented by Muro, et al are interesting and complement our findings2. Anti-DFS70 antibodies were found in 7/116 (6.4%) patients with DM. Although the prevalence in DM was not directly compared to a cohort of healthy individuals, based on previous data of 597 healthy hospital workers3, Muro and colleagues concluded that anti-DFS70 antibodies are less prevalent in persons with DM compared to healthy individuals (6.4% vs 10.7%, respectively). It is important to point out that the 2 cohorts were tested with 2 different ELISA systems, the DM cohort with a commercial ELISA and the healthy individuals with a research assay. Of high interest, the prevalence of isolated anti-DFS70 antibodies (with no other SARD-related autoantibody) was even lower. In the DM cohort, 2/116 … Address correspondence to Dr. Mahler; E-mail: mmahler{at}inovadx.com

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)0.015
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0170.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.008

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicInflammatory Myopathies and DermatomyositisFrench-language works237,207