MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2486221345 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511997433.031

Young woman with abnormal movements but no family history

2011· book-chapter· en· W2486221345 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan V. V. Evans, Kevin Biglan

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychological assessmentPsychologyCognitionDysexecutive syndromeVerbal fluency testNeuropsychologyDementiaAmnesiaAudiologyVerbal memoryMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter talks about a 41-year-old man who was referred to memory clinic because of memory loss, poor verbal expression, loss of interest, and blunted response to environment. Cognitive status was evaluated by the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and a detailed neuropsychological battery for assessment of memory, language and executive function, attention, and concentration. The examination documented moderate dementia with moderate amnesia and dysexecutive syndrome. Neuropsychological tests showed evidence of cognitive impairment of multiple domains, including memory, executive function, and attention and speed of information processing. He received 3-week penicillin therapy at an Infectious Diseases Hospital. During the follow-up check-up 3 months after penicillin therapy, the serum Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR) was negative. Performance of verbal fluency and color trail making test was improved dramatically, suggesting executive function was restored after anti-syphilitic therapy. The follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan was unaltered compared with the initial visit.

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)0.000
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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.008

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 topicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases→French-language works237,207→