MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339049650 · doi:10.1177/1203475415610745

Indirect Immunofluorescence for the Detection of Autoimmune Urticaria

2015· article· en· W2339049650 on OpenAlexafffund
Bahar Bahrani, Natasha Gattey, Peter Hull

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrticaria and Related Conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsMedicineImmunofluorescenceAutoantibodyImmunologyIndirect immunofluorescenceDirect fluorescent antibodyImmunoglobulin EUrticaria pigmentosaAntibodyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An autoimmune basis is believed to be responsible for about half of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) cases. The autologous serum skin test is used as a possible indicator, but there is currently no test that directly indicates an autoimmune etiology. In this study, an indirect immunofluorescence was used to identify patients with autoantibodies directed at mast cells. METHODS: Two substrates were used including paraffin embedded sections of skin biopsies from an infant with bullous mastocytosis and cord blood-derived mast cells (CBMC). Sera from 76 patients with CSU were incubated with substrates and conjugated with human IgG. RESULTS: Using the bullous mastocytosis preparations, positive indirect immunofluorescence was found in 46% (n = 76), while the CBMC substrate was positive in 39% (n = 70). CONCLUSION: The IgG autoantibodies directed at mast cells could be detected in about half the patients with CSU. Indirect immunofluorescence should be considered as an indicator of the autoimmune form of CSU.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.273
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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicUrticaria and Related ConditionsFrench-language works237,207