The Case of the Inverted Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A patient with suspected primary hyperparathyroidism underwent selective venous sampling (SVS) to localize a parathyroid adenoma. A total of 7 samples were collected from the patient and all samples were centrifuged to separate the plasma from the cellular fraction for parathyroid hormone quantification. While there was clear separation of the 2 fractions, 1 sample (sample 7; shown in Fig. 1) had red blood cells partitioned above the plasma. ... ... The answers are below. Increased protein concentration or contamination with contrast medium increases the plasma density (1, 2), potentially leading to the anomaly depicted above. We hypothesized that this sample was contaminated with Visipaque (3), a contrast medium used in computed tomography–guided SVS that can increase plasma density (4). Consistent with this hypothesis, we determined the density of all samples and found that the density of sample 7 was significantly higher than the rest: 1.080 g/mL, mean (SD), 1.003 (0.036) g/mL [(n = 7; P = 0.01, Grubbs test].
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".