Metabolomics by magnetic resonance spectroscopy may not sufficiently explain “brain fog” in neuro-COVID
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Finsterer J. Metabolomics by magnetic resonance spectroscopy may not sufficiently explain "brain fog" in neuro-COVID. Polish Journal of Radiology. 2022;87(1):670-671. doi:10.5114/pjr.2022.123570. APA Finsterer, J. (2022). Metabolomics by magnetic resonance spectroscopy may not sufficiently explain "brain fog" in neuro-COVID. Polish Journal of Radiology, 87(1), 670-671. https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.123570 Chicago Finsterer, Josef. 2022. "Metabolomics by magnetic resonance spectroscopy may not sufficiently explain "brain fog" in neuro-COVID". Polish Journal of Radiology 87 (1): 670-671. doi:10.5114/pjr.2022.123570. Harvard Finsterer, J. (2022). Metabolomics by magnetic resonance spectroscopy may not sufficiently explain "brain fog" in neuro-COVID. Polish Journal of Radiology, 87(1), pp.670-671. https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.123570 MLA Finsterer, Josef. "Metabolomics by magnetic resonance spectroscopy may not sufficiently explain "brain fog" in neuro-COVID." Polish Journal of Radiology, vol. 87, no. 1, 2022, pp. 670-671. doi:10.5114/pjr.2022.123570. Vancouver Finsterer J. Metabolomics by magnetic resonance spectroscopy may not sufficiently explain "brain fog" in neuro-COVID. Polish Journal of Radiology. 2022;87(1):670-671. doi:10.5114/pjr.2022.123570.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".