MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004701923 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-59192-z

Suggested Case of Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis in a Cretaceous dinosaur

2020· article· en· W3004701923 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce M. Rothschild, Darren H. Tanke, Frank Rühli, Ariel Pokhojaev, Hila May

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistiocytic Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsRoyal Tyrrell Museum
FundersUniversité de BordeauxTel Aviv UniversityDan David Prize
KeywordsLangerhans cell histiocytosisLesionHistiocytosisPathologyPathologicalBiologyAnatomySkeleton (computer programming)MedicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Susceptibility to diseases is common to humans and dinosaurs. Since much of the biological history of every living creature is shaped by its diseases, recognizing them in fossilized bone can furnish us with important information on dinosaurs' physiology and anatomy, as well as on their daily activities and surrounding environment. In the present study, we examined the vertebrae of two humans from skeletal collections with Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH), a benign osteolytic tumor-like disorder involving mainly the skeleton; they were diagnosed in life, along with two hadrosaur vertebrae with an apparent lesion. Macroscopic and microscopic analyses of the hadrosaur vertebrae were compared to human LCH and to other pathologies observed via an extensive pathological survey of a human skeletal collection, as well as a three-dimensional reconstruction of the lesion and its associated blood vessels from a µCT scan. The hadrosaur pathology findings were indistinguishable from those of humans with LCH, supporting that diagnosis. This report suggests that hadrosaurids had suffered from larger variety of pathologies than previously reported. Furthermore, it seems that LCH may be independent of phylogeny.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicHistiocytic Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207