Bibliographic record
Abstract
cases and . . .timing of the lumbar puncture."We stated that "in six of seven patients with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in whom the RT-QuIC test of cerebrospinal fluid was negative but the RT-QuIC test of olfactory mucosa was positive, the lumbar puncture and olfactory mucosa brushing were performed at almost the same interval after disease onset, suggesting that the observed differences in prion seeding activity between these specimens were not due to differences in sampling time."We stand by this conclusion, although we now realize that the stated numbers pertain to total, rather than sporadic, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases.Other, larger RT-QuIC analyses of cerebrospinal fluid specimens yielded sensitivities of 83 to 89%, 1,2 as compared with our provisional sensitivity of at least 97% from olfactory mucosa.Much further study is required, but since our initial report, we have collected these two specimen types simulta-neously from 12 additional patients, with a sensitivity of 100% from olfactory mucosa (12 of 12 samples) and 83% from cerebrospinal fluid (10 of 12 samples).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".