MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4254807325 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.398

[P1–382]: MULTI‐CLASS DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS AMONG ALZHEIMER's, PARKINSON's, CORTICOBASAL SYNDROME AND PROGRESSIVE SUPRANUCLEAR PALSY

2017· article· en· W4254807325 on OpenAlexaff
Pradeep Reddy Raamana, Stephen C. Strother

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgressive supranuclear palsyCorticobasal degenerationFrontotemporal dementiaDementia with Lewy bodiesNeuroimagingPosterior cortical atrophyPsychologyTauopathyDifferential diagnosisNeuroscienceAtrophyDementiaMedicinePathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some sulcal regions show expansion with tight high convexity and others contraction.Data from regions with AUROCS in excess of 0.7 were used to build an LDA model with an AUROC of 0.94 (Figure 3).Conclusions: An entirely automated method can be used to predict classification of tight high convexity.By combining both contracted and expanded CSF spaces, the LDA classifier captures many of the patients with DESH, an important radiological feature of iNPH, and is consistent with the hypothesis that tight high convexity is neither atrophy nor inflammation but a shifting of tissue.Figure 3.The ROC curves for the LDA model combining the best regions and the best single expanded and constricted regions.The AUROC for the LDA model is approximately 0.94 indicating that the model has excellent accuracy for tight high convexity classification.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.007

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→