MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2885679817 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.69523

The authors respond to “Is there a real increased risk of stroke in patients with dengue fever?”

2018· letter· en· W2885679817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hao-Miing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDengue feverStroke (engine)MedicineIncidence (geometry)CohortStroke riskComplicationPediatricsEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicineImmunologyIschemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My coauthors and I thank Drs. Joob and Wiwanitkit[1][1] for sharing their experience regarding our recent study.[2][2] We agree that stroke is an uncommon neurologic complication in patients with dengue fever. As shown in our study, the overall incidence rate of stroke in the dengue cohort was 5.33

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0280.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.010

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
GenreCommentary

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicMosquito-borne diseases and control→French-language works237,207→