MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Letter to The Editor

2006· letter· en· W2607072100 on OpenAlexaff
Nigel J. Cairns, Eileen H. Bigio, Ian R. Mackenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: In the recent review of the pathobiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by Strong et al (1), tau pathology is described as being characteristic of the neuropathology of ALS, ALS with dementia, and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD)-motor neuron disease (MND)-type. The literature of the neuropathology of these diseases and our own extensive experience do not support this conclusion (2-5). Abnormal protein aggregates, either within neurons or glia or in the extracellular space, are characteristic of most neurodegenerative disorders. Several seemingly diverse disorders are now linked by the pathologic protein that defines their molecular pathology; thus, several diseases may now be classified as tauopathies, synucleinopathies, prion diseases, or trinucleotide repeat disorders. However, there remain a number of neurodegenerative diseases that have ubiquitinated neuronal inclusions, but the pathologic protein of the inclusion remains unknown and their nosology remains tentative. Motor neuron disease, motor neuron disease with dementia (MNDD), and frontotemporal lobar degeneration with motor neuron disease-type inclusions (FTLD-MND-type) are clinically and neuropathologically overlapping disorders and fall into this category of neurodegenerative disease with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (2-5).

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0210.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuropathology & Experimental NeurologySame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207