MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2222719716 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511997433.016

Progressive difficulty producing speech

2011· book-chapter· en· W2222719716 on OpenAlexaff
Mariana Blanco, Morris Freedman

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeukoaraiosisApraxiaPsychologyDementiaHemiparesisNeuropsychologyMedicineAudiologyCardiologyMagnetic resonance imagingAnesthesiaRadiologyInternal medicineCognitionNeuroscienceWhite matterAngiographyAphasia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes hemiparesis followed by dementia using the case of a 73-year-old woman who presented to the emergency room with mild left hemiparesis since awakening the day before. Computed tomography (CT) scan showed a known old right parieto-temporal infarct and a right caudate nucleus lacune. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) done within 3 days of presentation show the same ischemic lesions without diffusion restriction, with mild leukoaraiosis and atrophy for age. Neuropsychological tests showed severe executive functions deficits, moderate to severe memory deficits, and mild visuoconstructive and ideomotor apraxia. The initial diagnostic impression was mixed dementia, although a purely vascular dementia could not be ruled out. Repeated mini-mental state examination (MMSE) showed decline over time, despite temporary improvement after initiation of a cholinesterase inhibitor, galantamine (Reminyl ER), 3 months after presentation. Blood pressure remained high during initial follow-up, requiring several anti-hypertensive medication adjustments.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.012

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism→French-language works237,207→