MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280556272 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.912050

Testing for Antibodies Against Aquaporin-4 and Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein in the Diagnosis of Patients With Suspected Autoimmune Myelopathy

2022· review· en· W4280556272 on OpenAlexafffund
Samir Alkabie, Adrian Budhram

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersLondon Health Sciences FoundationLondon Health Sciences Centre
KeywordsMedicineMyelin oligodendrocyte glycoproteinMultiple sclerosisMyelopathyNeuromyelitis opticaImmunologyAntibodyAquaporin 4NeurologyCerebrospinal fluidOligodendrocyteMyelinExperimental autoimmune encephalomyelitisPathologySpinal cordInternal medicineCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autoimmune myelopathies are immune-mediated disorders of the spinal cord that can cause significant neurologic disability. Discoveries of antibodies targeting aquaporin-4 (AQP4-IgG) and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG-IgG) have facilitated the diagnosis of autoimmune myelopathies that were previously considered to be atypical presentations of multiple sclerosis (MS) or idiopathic, and represent major advancements in the field of autoimmune neurology. The detection of these antibodies can substantially impact patient diagnosis and management, and increasing awareness of this has led to a dramatic increase in testing for these antibodies among patients with suspected autoimmune myelopathy. In this review we discuss test methodologies used to detect these antibodies, the role of serum vs. cerebrospinal fluid testing, and the value of antibody titers when interpreting results, with the aim of helping laboratorians and clinicians navigate this testing when ordered as part of the diagnostic evaluation for suspected autoimmune myelopathy.

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)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.312
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
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207