MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225331413 · doi:10.1007/s00415-022-11135-6

Proposal of new diagnostic criteria for fatal familial insomnia

2022· article· en· W4225331413 on OpenAlexaff
Min Kyung Chu, Kexin Xie, Jing Zhang, Zhongyun Chen, Imad Ghorayeb, Sven Rupprecht, Anthony T. Reder, Arturo Garay, Hiroyuki Honda, Masao Nagayama, Qi Shi, Shuqin Zhan, Haitian Nan, Jiatang Zhang, Hongzhi Guan, Li Cui, Yanjun Guo, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Serge Gauthier, Jiawei Wang, Xiao‐Ping Dong, Liyong Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPrion Diseases and Protein Misfolding
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingFatal familial insomniaDiseaseNeurologyDiagnostic accuracyInternal medicinePrion proteinPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The understanding of fatal familial insomnia (FFI), a rare neurodegenerative autosomal dominant prion disease, has improved in recent years as more cases were reported. This work aimed to propose new diagnostic criteria for FFI with optimal sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio. METHODS: An international group of experts was established and 128 genetically confirmed FFI cases and 281 non-FFI prion disease controls are enrolled in the validation process. The new criteria were proposed based on the following steps with two-round expert consultation: (1) Validation of the 2018 FFI criteria. (2) Diagnostic item selection according to statistical analysis and expert consensus. (3) Validation of the new criteria. RESULTS: The 2018 criteria for possible FFI had a sensitivity of 90.6%, a specificity of 83.3%, with a positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 5.43, and a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.11; and the probable FFI criteria had a sensitivity of 83.6%, specificity of 92.9%, with a PLR of 11.77, and a NLR of 0.18. The new criteria included more specific and/or common clinical features, two exclusion items, and summarized a precise and flexible diagnostic hierarchy. The new criteria for possible FFI had therefore reached a better sensitivity and specificity (92.2% and 96.1%, respectively), a PLR of 23.64 and a NLR of 0.08, whereas the probable FFI criteria showed a sensitivity of 90.6%, a specificity of 98.2%, with a PLR of 50.33 and a NLR of 0.095. CONCLUSIONS: We propose new clinical diagnostic criteria for FFI, for a better refining of the clinical hallmarks of the disease that ultimately would help an early recognition of FFI and a better differentiation from other prion diseases.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurologySame topicPrion Diseases and Protein MisfoldingFrench-language works237,207