MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2316921024 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2015.13

Saskatchewan Movement Disorders Program

2015· review· en· W2316921024 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Ali H. Rajput

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Authority
FundersRoyal University Hospital Foundation
KeywordsAutopsyMedicineFamily medicinePatient careMedical emergencyPediatricsPathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review the Saskatchewan Movement Disorders Program, which started in 1968 and has had the dual goals of patient care and research. The clinics are structured to collect research-worthy data including videos, longitudinal follow-up, and autopsy studies of patients seen in the clinics. At every clinic visit, the patient is evaluated by one or both authors. A total of 25% to 30% of the deceased come to autopsy. Frozen half-brain and formalin-fixed remnants from autopsy are preserved in our laboratories. Patients not seen in our clinic are not included in research, which makes it different from brain banks. So far, 515 cases have come to autopsy. So far, there have been 17 collaborating scientific teams from Canada, the United States, Europe, and Japan. The collaborators are not charged for access to our resources. This program offers a unique opportunity to study multiple aspects of movement disorder patients seen in clinical practice.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.014

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→