MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170708909 · doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2004.09.021

Clinical and demographic characteristics of psychiatric patients seropositive for <i>Borrelia burgdorferi</i>

2004· article· en· W2170708909 on OpenAlexaff
Tomáš Hájek, Jan Libiger, D Janovská, Peter Hájek, Martin Alda, Cyril Höschl

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersGrantová Agentura České Republiky
KeywordsBorrelia burgdorferiMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicineImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb) infection can affect the central nervous system and possibly lead to psychiatric disorders. We compared clinical and demographic variables in Bb seropositive and seronegative psychiatric patients and healthy controls. METHOD: Nine hundred and twenty-six consecutive psychiatric patients were screened for antibodies to Bb and compared with 884 simultaneously recruited healthy subjects. RESULTS: Contrary to healthy controls, seropositive psychiatric patients were significantly younger than seronegative ones. None of the studied psychiatric diagnostic categories exhibited stronger association with seropositivity. There were no differences between seropositive and seronegative psychiatric patients in hospitalization length, proportion of previously hospitalized patients and proportion of subjects with family history of psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSION: These findings elaborate on potential association between Bb infection and psychiatric morbidity, but fail to identify any specific clinical 'signature' of Bb infection.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207