MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777053691 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181b0e96a

The common <i>BDNF</i> polymorphism may be a modifier of disease severity in Rett syndrome

2009· article· en· W2777053691 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Martin O’Donnell, Moira K. Kapral, Frank L. Silver

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCanadian Stroke NetworkUniversity Health Network
KeywordsRett syndromeMedicinePolymorphism (computer science)Degenerative diseaseDiseaseGeneticsInternal medicineNeuroscienceBioinformaticsPsychologyGenotypeBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with intracerebral hemorrhage are likely to be at greater risk of stress ulceration as they are more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit, undergo major surgery, and more likely to have an underlying diathesis to bleeding compared to patients with ischemic stroke. 2 Second, we included registry data obtained by screening patient records for clinically documented gastrointestinal bleeding which likely resulted in underreporting of bleeding episodes, particularly minor bleeds.The comparative frequency of the more serious gastrointestinal hemorrhages requiring transfusion (unlikely to be missed by chart review) was 36/ 6,853 (0.5%) in our study 1 and 1/51 (2.0%) in the cohort study by Misra et al. 2 Unfortunately, we were unable to comment on the etiologies of gastrointestinal bleeding since this information was not captured in our study.1 We agree that further research is required to explore a potential gender effect.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207