MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

COBALAMIN C DISEASE AND EXPANDED NEWBORN SCREENING: THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE.

2007· article· en· W2345627888 on OpenAlexaff
Kristina Cusmano‐Ozog, Fred Lorey, Stuart S. Levine, Michael J. Martin, Seymour Packman, David S. Rosenblatt, Tina M. Cowan, Gregory M. Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Investigative Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCobalaminNewborn screeningMedicineDiseasePediatricsInternal medicineVitamin B12

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cobalamin C (cblC) disease is the most common inborn error of vitamin B12 metabolism. Patients have elevated methylmalonic acid (MMA) and homocysteine and typically have a poor prognosis. Common features include mental retardation, nystagmus, pigmentary retinopathy, and neurodegeneration. Treatment includes protein restriction and hydroxocobalamin, betaine, carnitine, and folic acid supplementation. California initiated expanded newborn screening (NBS) in July 2005. Since that time, there have been 10 cases of cblC disease confirmed by fibroblast complementation analysis and/or biochemical studies, resulting in a surprisingly high estimated prevalence of 1 in 60,000. An additional three newborns have been identified in Northern California in whom confirmatory studies are pending. Because 8 of 10 cases are Hispanic, we estimate the prevalence in the Hispanic population to be 1 in 37,000. In the confirmed cases, initial NBS results showed an elevated C3 level ranging from 6.5 to 13.1 μmol/L and an elevated C3/C2 ratio ranging from 0.29 to 0.45 (reference range

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Investigative MedicineSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207