MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792305560 · doi:10.1016/j.ajoc.2018.01.024

HLA-A29 negative Birdshot-like chorioretinopathy associated with common variable immunodeficiency

2018· article· en· W2792305560 on OpenAlexaff
Razek Georges Coussa, Fares Antaki, David E. Lederer

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCommon variable immunodeficiencyMacular edemaVisual acuityOphthalmologyEdemaEtiologyUveitisChorioretinitisDermatologySurgeryPathologyImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report the longest ophthalmic follow-up and the associated ocular complications of HLA-A29 negative Birdshot-like chorioretinopathy (BLCR) associated with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID). OBSERVATIONS: A 22-year-old man known for CVID presented with a 3-month history of decreased visual acuity OS. Funduscopy revealed significant cystoid macular edema OS, as well as optic disk edema and chorioretinal infiltrates without signs of vitritis OU. No infectious, inflammatory or neoplastic etiologies were identified. He subsequently received one dose of intravitreal triamcinolone OS which completely resolved the macular edema. The optic nerve edema persisted despite the addition of intravenous immunoglobulin. His visual acuity was 20/20 OU at the 24th follow-up month. CONCLUSION: and importance: To our knowledge, this is the third case of HLA-A29 negative BLCR associated with CVID. It is the first case with long-term follow-up providing, in consequence, the best understanding of the natural history and possible complications of this rare disease. Aggressive systemic treatment, in collaboration with an immunologist, is generally needed to control the ophthalmic complications.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology Case ReportsSame topicOcular Diseases and Behçet’s SyndromeFrench-language works237,207