MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cutaneous manifestations in patients with Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome submitted to haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

2013· article· en· W2162917432 on OpenAlexaff
Juliana Gomes Loyola Presa, Vânia Oliveira Carvalho, Laura Morrisey, Carmem Bonfim, Kerstin Taniguchi Abagge, Angélica Vasselai, Leide Parolin Marinoni

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWiskott–Aldrich syndromeEcchymosisStem cellTransplantationHaematopoiesisHematopoietic stem cell transplantationAtopic dermatitisImmunologyDermatologyPathologyInternal medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (WAS) is an X-linked primary immunodeficiency caused by a mutation of the WAS protein gene. This protein actively participates in important cellular processes, and its presence is related to diverse clinical manifestations, including cutaneous alterations. The classical triad of WAS consists of recurrent infections, thrombocytopaenia with small platelets and atopic dermatitis (AD)-like lesions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequencies of cutaneous manifestations in patients with WAS prior to haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). RESULTS: Twenty-four boys diagnosed with WAS and treated with HSCT between 1992 and 2007 were included. The characteristic triad of WAS occurred in 46% of patients. Before HSCT, the most frequent cutaneous manifestations included eczema similar to AD (71%), followed by petechiae and/or ecchymosis (58%) and cutaneous infections (17%). CONCLUSIONS: Cutaneous manifestations in patients with WAS are frequent, especially those similar to the eczema found in AD.

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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207