MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring the Diagnostic Potential of Immune Biomarker Coexpression in Gulf War Illness

2012· article· en· W25368323 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Broderick, Mary A Fletcher, Michael Gallagher, Zachary Barnes, Suzanne D. Vernon, Nancy G. Klimas

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsBiomarkerImmune systemGulf warMedicineInternal medicineMultivariate statisticsImmunologyPsychologyBiologyGeneticsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complex disorders like Gulf War Illness (GWI) often defy diagnosis on the basis of a single biomarker and may only be distinguishable by considering the coexpression of multiple markers measured in response to a challenge. We demonstrate the practical application of such an approach using an example where blood was collected from 26 GWI, 13 healthy control subjects, and 9 unhealthy controls with Chronic Fatigue at three points during a graded exercise challenge. A 3-way multivariate projection model based on 12 markers of endocrine and immune function was constructed using a training set of n = 10 GWI and n = 11 healthy controls. These groups were separated almost completely on the basis of two coexpression patterns. In a separate test set these same features allowed for discrimination of new GWI subjects (n = 16) from unhealthy (n = 9) and healthy control subjects with a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 90%.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207