MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2914860456 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.180833

Dr. Seidman replies

2019· letter· en· W2914860456 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ernest G. Seidman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCalprotectinInflammatory bowel diseaseSpondylarthropathiesUlcerative colitisInflammatory Bowel DiseasesDiseaseBiomarkerGastroenterologyInternal medicineDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are pleased to note the interest that Van Hoovels and colleagues have for our SpACE Capsule study1, and read with interest their investigation of the clinical utility of assaying fecal calprotectin (FC) to assist in the diagnosis of spondyloarthritis (SpA)2. Rheumatologists traditionally proclaim that the extraarticular manifestations of SpA include inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)3. IBD, including Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis, are analogously associated with various extraintestinal manifestations (EIM). The most common EIM is articular involvement, reported in 16–33% of patients with IBD4. Thus, gastroenterologists often decree SpA as an EIM of IBD. Regardless of which side of this “chicken and egg” debate one adheres to, the unifying message is that SpA and IBD often coexist and need to be assessed, because jointly they modify management strategies5,6. FC is established as an excellent biomarker of intestinal inflammation7. Van Hoovels, et al investigated the value of FC in diagnosing … Address correspondence to Dr. E. Seidman. E-mail: ernest.seidman{at}mcgill.ca

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)0.014
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0150.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→