MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586986590 · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0005201

Nakalanga Syndrome: Clinical Characteristics, Potential Causes, and Its Relationship with Recently Described Nodding Syndrome

2017· review· en· W2586986590 on OpenAlexaff
Kathrin Föger, Gina Gora‐Stahlberg, James J. Sejvar, Emilio Ovuga, Louise Jilek‐Aall, Erich Schmutzhard, Christoph Kaiser, Andrea Sylvia Winkler

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStunted growthMedicineEpilepsyPediatricsWest SyndromeTanzaniaEncephalopathyPsychiatryMalnutritionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nakalanga syndrome is a condition that was described in Uganda and various other African countries decades ago. Its features include growth retardation, physical deformities, endocrine dysfunction, mental impairment, and epilepsy, amongst others. Its cause remains obscure. Nodding syndrome is a neurological disorder with some features in common with Nakalanga syndrome, which has been described mainly in Uganda, South Sudan, and Tanzania. It has been considered an encephalopathy affecting children who, besides head nodding attacks, can also present with stunted growth, delayed puberty, and mental impairment, amongst other symptoms. Despite active research over the last years on the pathogenesis of Nodding syndrome, to date, no convincing single cause of Nodding syndrome has been reported. In this review, by means of a thorough literature search, we compare features of both disorders. We conclude that Nakalanga and Nodding syndromes are closely related and may represent the same condition. Our findings may provide new directions in research on the cause underlying this neurological disorder.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations65
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS neglected tropical diseasesSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207