MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2908207667 · doi:10.1136/bmj.k4773

A 51 year old woman with leg weakness after falling

2019· article· en· W2908207667 on OpenAlexaff
Shlok Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of NiagaraNiagara Health SystemMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurological examinationPhysical examinationClonusWeaknessHyperreflexiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 51 year old woman presented to the emergency department after being found on the floor beside her bed—she had fallen and was unable to get up. She had no angina, palpitations, dyspnoea, nausea, diaphoresis, or loss of consciousness before, during, or after the fall. She reported difficulty passing urine for 4-6 weeks. Her history included hypercholestrolaemia, generalised anxiety disorder, and gastroesophageal reflux. She had facial bruising and was unable to walk. Cardiopulmonary examinations were normal. Table 1 shows her strength examination results. Reflexes were 3+at the biceps, triceps, brachioradialis, patella, and Achilles tendons. Ankle plantar responses were upgoing bilaterally (Babinski sign) with spasticity in the legs and sustained clonus at the ankle. Hoffman sign was negative. Digital rectal examination revealed normal tone. Proprioception testing at the big toe was normal. Sensory examination was normal to light touch. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed (fig 1). Fig 1 T2 weighted MRI of the spine View this table: Table 1 Strength examination results according to …

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus→French-language works237,207→