MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015583837 · doi:10.1080/09273948.2020.1736310

An Algorithm for the Diagnosis of Behçet Disease Uveitis in Adults

2020· article· en· W3015583837 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOcular Immunology and Inflammation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinal vasculitisMedicineUveitisBehcet diseaseChoroiditisCartOphthalmologyAnterior uveitisRetrospective cohort studyDermatologyVasculitisBehcet's diseaseAlgorithmDiseaseSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To develop an algorithm for the diagnosis of Behçet’s disease (BD) uveitis based on ocular findings.Methods: Following an initial survey among uveitis experts, we collected multi-center retrospective data on 211 patients with BD uveitis and 207 patients with other uveitides, and identified ocular findings with a high diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Subsequently, we collected multi-center prospective data on 127 patients with BD uveitis and 322 controls and developed a diagnostic algorithm using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis and expert opinion.Results: We identified 10 items with DOR >5. The items that provided the highest accuracy in CART analysis included superficial retinal infiltrate, signs of occlusive retinal vasculitis, and diffuse retinal capillary leakage as well as the absence of granulomatous anterior uveitis or choroiditis in patients with vitritis.Conclusion: This study provides a diagnostic tree for BD uveitis that needs to be validated in future studies.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
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