MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793068097 · doi:10.1097/mcp.0000000000000472

Systematic screening in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia

2018· review· en· W2793068097 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Kroon, Repke J. Snijder, Marie E. Faughnan, Hans‐Jurgen Mager

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Anomalies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTelangiectasiaDermatologyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) is an autosomal dominant inherited disease characterized by telangiectasia and arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). To date, five genetic types of HHT and one combined juvenile polyposis syndrome and HHT are known. Clinical and genetic screening of patients suspected with HHT is recommended to confirm the diagnosis and to prevent complications associated with HHT. The aim of this article is to give an overview of the evidence and to formulate a recommendation for clinicians concerning screening for HHT. RECENT FINDINGS: Complications of HHT such as stroke, brain abscess and intracranial hemorrhage are caused by pulmonary and cerebral AVMs (CAVMs) and can often be prevented by screening and treatment when possible. Screening and treatment of these AVMs will result in an increased life expectancy comparable with that of the general population as opposed to unscreened and untreated HHT patients. SUMMARY: Screening of HHT patients and their first-degree relatives is recommended to prevent severe complications including stroke, brain abscess and intracranial hemorrhage.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Pulmonary MedicineSame topicVascular Anomalies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207