MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia as a common cause of bronchiectasis in the Canadian Inuit population

2023· preprint· en· W4376618540 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Déborah Morris-Rosendahl

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOral and Craniofacial Lesions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary ciliary dyskinesiaBronchiectasisIntervention (counseling)PopulationPsychological interventionMedicinePublic healthOtitisIndigenousPediatricsFamily medicineIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthPathologyPsychiatryBiologySurgeryInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

with other laboratory and clinical investigations. Early and accurate diagnosis of inherited conditions generally leads to better medical care for patients and their families, with improved knowledge of the natural history of the condition and early intervention. It is therefore essential that equitable access to such testing is established for indigenous and isolated populations, in order to further narrow the health disparity gap. Although supported by funding from a few sources, this study signals a success for the Silent Genomes Project, with one of the cases having been identified by whole genome sequencing within that project, after negative whole exome sequencing. Furthermore the study has potential life-changing clinical consequences and provides starting points for possible interventions for respiratory medicine in the Inuit population. These include increased awareness of the possibility of PCD in patients presenting with neonatal respiratory distress, bronchiectasis or otitis media leading to early intervention; and in conjunction with Inuit organizations and public health officials, targeted analysis of the DNAH11 variant in the population with the possible introduction of newborn screening for PCD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOral and Craniofacial LesionsFrench-language works237,207