Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A 28 year old male with a previous diagnosis of Ewing’s Sarcoma in 2008, and a revised diagnosis to Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2016, presented to the Neurology service 6 months after starting the novel monoclonal antibody, Brentuximab. Concurrent therapy included adriamycin, vincristine and daunorubicin. He was referred for progressive weakness and sensory symptoms starting in the legs and spreading to the arms over 6 months. Methods: Examination demonstrated distal symmetric weakness with power of 3 proximally and distally in the lower extremities. Reflexes were absent at the ankles and severely reduced at the patella. Gait was consistent with a sensory ataxia, and there was pseudoathetosis of the left hand. Results: MRI demonstrated no relevant abnormalities. Electrophysiology was consistent with a motor predominant, distal symmetric sensorimotor axonal neuropathy. Conclusions: A review of the literature demonstrated that the monoclonal antibody brentuximab has a high incidence (48%; n = 89) of a reversible distal symmetric polyneuropathy. The mechanism likely relates to microtubule dysfunction by the conjugated compound monomethyl auristatin E. This case adds to the existing body of literature around a severe but potentially reversible neuropathy, resulting from the new monoclonal antibody brentuximab, which may also serve as a model of disease in neuropathy with a well elucidated mechanism of toxicity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".