MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2488500430 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511997433.021

Hypersexuality in a 69-year-old man

2011· book-chapter· en· W2488500430 on OpenAlexaff
Oscar L. López, James T. Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary progressive aphasiaAphasiaSemantic dementiaPsychologyComprehensionDementiaAudiologyPerseverationCognitive psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceLinguisticsPathologyFrontotemporal dementiaCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter talks about a 61-year-old woman with a 5-year history of difficulty finding words and slowly progressive memory decline. At initial presentation, mood was good. General neurological exam was unremarkable. Language examination showed that spontaneous speech was fluent. Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) revealed reduced cortical perfusion in the left frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes compared to the right. The initial clinical impression was semantic dementia (SD). This senile dementia comprises one of the three clinical presentations of primary progressive aphasia (PPA). The other two are progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA) and logopenic progressive aphasia. PPA has been recognized under several different labels and concepts over the last century. The term SD was coined in 1989 to describe three patients with fluent aphasia, impaired word comprehension and visual comprehension deficits. SD shows insidious onset and gradual progression that is characterized by understanding of word meaning and/or object identity.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→