MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605206493 · doi:10.1093/pch/13.2.121

Case 1: The case of the irritable nephrotic

2008· article· en· W2605206493 on OpenAlexaff
Ronik Kanani, Masooma S. Mohamed, Diane Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNephrotic syndromeMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 22-month-old previously healthy boy presented to a tertiary care emergency department with a one-week history of periorbital and bilateral leg swelling. He had no fever, no recent illnesses and no blood in his urine or stool. He was known to have chronic constipation and had a poor diet consisting mainly of cow's milk. On physical examination, he had no hypertension, was in no apparent distress and displayed normal vital signs. He had marked periorbital edema and pitting edema of his lower limbs. His abdomen was distended and he had mild ascites. The rest of his examination was normal. A urine dipstick showed a high protein level (20 g/L) and a large amount of blood. He had low serum albumin of 18 g/L (normal 32 g/L to 56 g/L), high serum triglycerides of 2.17 g/L (normal 0.31 g/L to 1.41 g/L) and high serum cholesterol of 8.82 mmol/L (normal 3.2 mmol/L to 4.4 mmol/L). His electrolytes and renal function were normal. A complete blood count revealed a low hemoglobin of 79 g/L (normal 110 g/L to 140 g/L) with a low mean corpuscular volume of 53 fL (normal 80 fL to 94 fL). His platelet count was elevated at 934×109/L (normal 150×109/L to 400×109/L). A blood film showed marked hypochromasia and microcytosis. His iron and ferritin levels were both low.

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)0.006
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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicRenal Diseases and GlomerulopathiesFrench-language works237,207