MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Peer Review #2 of "A predictive model for canine dilated cardiomyopathy—a meta-analysis of Doberman Pinscher data (v0.1)"

2015· peer-review· en· W4256268668 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Siobhan Simspon, Jennifer Edwards, Richard D. Emes, Malcolm Cobb, Nigel P. Mongan, Catrin S. Rutland, Siobhan Simpson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilated cardiomyopathyMedicineInternal medicineHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dilated cardiomyopathy is a prevalent and often fatal disease in humans and dogs. Indeed dilated cardiomyopathy is the third most common form of cardiac disease in humans, reported to affect approximately 36 individuals per 100,000 individuals. In dogs, dilated cardiomyopathy is the second most common cardiac disease and is most prevalent in the Irish Wolfhound, Doberman Pinscher and Newfoundland breeds. Dilated cardiomyopathy is characterised by ventricular chamber enlargement and systolic dysfunction which often leads to congestive heart failure. Although multiple human loci have been implicated in the pathogenesis of dilated cardiomyopathy, the identified variants are typically associated with rare monogenic forms of dilated cardiomyopathy. The potential for multigenic interactions contributing to human dilated cardiomyopathy remains poorly understood. Consistent with this, several known human dilated cardiomyopathy loci have been excluded as common causes of canine dilated cardiomyopathy, although canine dilated cardiomyopathy resembles the human disease functionally. This suggests additional genetic factors contribute to the dilated cardiomyopathy phenotype.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.128 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207