MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244671793 · doi:10.1093/bmb/ldt003

Diabetic gastroparesis

2013· review· en· W4244671793 on OpenAlexaff
Christophe Vanormelingen, Jan Tack, Christopher N. Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Medical Bulletin · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGastroparesisMedicineBloatingGastric emptyingVomitingNauseaComplicationIntensive care medicineAbdominal painDiabetes mellitusProkinetic agentInternal medicineGastroenterologyStomachEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diabetic gastroparesis (DGP) is a gastric complication of diabetes mellitus that causes nausea, vomiting, early satiety, bloating and abdominal pain, in addition to significant morbidity. SOURCES OF DATA: Original and review articles were reviewed through PubMed, including relevant guidelines from the European and American Neurogastroenterology Societies. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Diagnosis of DGP requires endoscopy and measurement of gastric emptying. Management requires prokinetic therapy, usually in addition to antinausea or other medications. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The pathogenesis of DGP is poorly understood. Management strategies are highly variable. Growing points Prokinetic and neuromodulatory medications are in human clinical trials specifically for gastroparesis. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Further understanding of the molecular pathology leading to DGP is required to potentially arrest the development of this serious diabetic complication. Evaluation of novel agents for use in DGP is sorely needed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Medical BulletinSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207