MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2724974118 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1617374114

High serum serotonin in sudden infant death syndrome

2017· article· en· W2724974118 on OpenAlexaff
Robin L. Haynes, Andrew L. Frelinger, Emma K. Giles, Richard D. Goldstein, Thanh Hoa Tran, Harry P. Kozakewich, Elisabeth A. Haas, Anja J. Gerrits, Othon J. Mena, Felicia Trachtenberg, David S. Paterson, Gerard T. Berry, Khosrow Adeli, Hannah C. Kinney, Alan D. Michelson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCJ Foundation for SIDS
KeywordsSudden infant death syndromeSerotonergicAutopsySerotoninMedicineSudden deathAbnormalityInfant mortalityBrainstemPhysiologyPediatricsInternal medicinePsychiatryPopulationReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), the leading cause of postneonatal infant mortality, is defined as the sudden death of an infant less than 1 y of age that remains unexplained after a complete autopsy and death scene investigation. Although SIDS has been associated with deficiencies in central (brainstem) serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT), there are no known peripheral biomarkers for SIDS. Here we demonstrate increased serum serotonin levels in a subset (31%) of SIDS infants compared with control infants. These findings suggest the potential of a high serum serotonin level as a forensic biomarker at autopsy to differentiate SIDS deaths with serotonergic defects from other causes of sudden death and, importantly, as evidence of a peripheral 5-HT abnormality in SIDS.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations72
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207