MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109019868 · doi:10.1177/1179573520973819

Atypical Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder With Diffuse Cerebral Abnormalities: A Case Report

2020· article· en· W3109019868 on OpenAlexaff
Braeden D. Newton, Orhun H. Kantarci, Darin T. Okuda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Central Nervous System Disease · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuromyelitis opticaMedicineSpectrum disorderAquaporin 4Spinal cordWhite matterNeuroimagingHyperintensityPathologyMyelopathyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyMultiple sclerosisImmunologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent expansion of the radiological criteria and the use of a highly specific biomarker, anti-aquaporin 4-IgG (AQP4 IgG), has significantly improved the ability of clinicians to provide a timely and accurate diagnosis for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), especially when faced with an abnormal disease presentation. Here, we report on the 5-year clinical experience of a 69-year-old right-handed African American woman who initially presented following symptoms suggestive of transient global amnesia. Her clinical history was only remarkable for a single episode of visual decline with poor recovery experienced 35 years prior, with prior unrevealing serological investigations. Brain MRI features were significant for diffuse, bilateral white matter abnormalities throughout the supratentorial, deep gray matter, and infratentorial regions. Spinal cord imaging studies were within normal limits with no intramedullary high-signal abnormalities identified. Serological studies were significant for the presence of anti-aquaporin 4-IgG. The clinical features were supportive of the diagnosis of NMOSD. The data provided here highlight both the clinical and radiological heterogeneity of NMOSD.

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)0.001
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 score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Central Nervous System DiseaseSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207