MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810444702 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2018.177

P.075 Inflammatory Myositis associated with Myasthenia Gravis with and without thymic pathology: case series and literature review

2018· article· en· W2810444702 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kun Huang, M Mezei, Kam Shojania, Neda Amiri, Natasha Dehghan, Kristine Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyasthenia Gravis and Thymoma
Canadian institutionsVancouver Biotech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyasthenia gravisMedicineThymomaMyositisRituximabRefractory (planetary science)Medical recordDermatologyPathologyNeuromuscular diseaseDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The association of myasthenia gravis (MG) and inflammatory myositis (IM) is rare and often only one of the diseases is diagnosed. Methods: In this study, we reviewed medical records of patients seen at NMDU from 2004 to 2017 who had diagnosis of concurrent MG and IM. The data is presented descriptively. -Results: We identified 7 patients with MG-IM overlap. Clinical features, laboratory and pathology data of the patients are summarized in Table 1. Conclusions: This is one of the largest case series with MG-IM overlap. It is very important to recognize such association and the different pattern of muscle involvement because therapies may be adjusted to treat both conditions. In patients with thymic pathology, conventional disease modifying agents, IVIG and glucocorticoid in addition to thymoma resection appear to be effective. In patients with refractory MG and myositis who were AChR negative, rituximab may be effective.

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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMyasthenia Gravis and ThymomaFrench-language works237,207