MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172052262 · doi:10.1093/ndtplus/sfr105

Hyponatraemia caused by LGI1-associated limbic encephalitis

2011· article· en· W2172052262 on OpenAlexaff
Rory McQuillan, Joanne M. Bargman

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Kidney Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune Neurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAutoimmune encephalitisMalignancyLimbic encephalitisAutoantibodyEncephalitisEpilepsyNeurosciencePathologyImmunologyPsychiatryAntibodyPsychologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limbic encephalitis (LE), once thought to be a rare paraneoplastic phenomenon, is increasingly diagnosed in patients without malignancy. Autoimmune LE has emerged as a distinct clinical entity. Autoantibodies to neuronal cell surface proteins have been described and may now be tested for. This has led to an exponential increase in the number of cases being reported. The most recently implicated autoantibody is to the leucine-rich anti-glioma 1 protein (LGI1). This protein is involved in synaptic transmission and inherited loss-of-function mutations cause autosomal dominant lateral temporal epilepsy. LGI1 is also expressed in specific tubules in the kidney. Anti-leucine-rich anti-glioma 1 protein (anti-LGI1) LE presents with sub acute onset of progressive neurological, cognitive and psychiatric disturbance. The condition is complicated in up to 60% of cases with severe and life threatening hyponatraemia. As well as causing significant morbidity, the co-existence of hyponatraemia may confuse the initial diagnosis. We present a case of anti-LGI1 which was complicated by hyponatraemia with a comprehensive review of the literature.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Kidney JournalSame topicAutoimmune Neurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207