MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791616704 · doi:10.1212/cpj.0000000000000422

Neuroradiologic manifestations of Erdheim-Chester disease

2018· article· en· W2791616704 on OpenAlexaff
Natalie Parks, Gaurav Goyal, Ronald S. Go, Jay Mandrekar, W. Oliver Tobin

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology Clinical Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistiocytic Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErdheim–Chester diseaseDiabetes insipidusHistiocytosisSpinal cordMultiple sclerosisMagnetic resonance imagingPathologyInternal medicineRadiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background We describe the neuroradiologic features of a cohort of patients with Erdheim-Chester disease. Methods We assessed patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester between January 1, 1990, and July 31, 2016, with pathologically confirmed Erdheim-Chester disease (n = 53). Results Neuroimaging, including head CT (n = 17), brain MRI (n = 39), orbital MRI (n = 15), and spine MRI (n = 16), was available for 42 participants. Median age at diagnosis was 55 years (interquartile range 46–66) with higher male prevalence (33:20). Neurologic symptoms were identified in 47% (25/53); BRAFV600E mutation in 58% (15/26). Median follow-up was 2 years (range 0–20) with 18 patients deceased. Radiologic disease evidence was seen in dura (6/41), brainstem (9/39), cerebellum (8/39), spinal cord (2/16), spinal epidura (2/16), hypothalamic-pituitary axis (17/39), and orbits (13/42). T2 white matter abnormalities (Fazekas score ≥1) were present in 21/34 patients. Diabetes insipidus was present in 30% (16/53); 8 had abnormal hypothalamic–pituitary axis imaging. Radiographic evidence of CNS involvement (i.e., dural, brain, including Fazekas score >1, or spinal cord) occurred in 55% (22/40) and was unassociated with significantly increased mortality. Conclusions Erdheim-Chester disease commonly and variably involves the neuraxis. Patients with suspected Erdheim-Chester disease should undergo MRI brain and spine and screening investigations (serum sodium, serum and urine osmolality) for diabetes insipidus to clarify extent of neurologic disease.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.372 · 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

Citations57
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology Clinical PracticeSame topicHistiocytic Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207