MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392846411 · doi:10.55905/cuadv16n3-070

Analysis of the relationship between genetic mutation, clinical manifestations and prognosis in hereditary angioedema: scoping review protocol

2024· article· en· W4392846411 on OpenAlexaff
Tatielly Kruk, Lucas Marques Fortunato, Caroline Guth de Freitas Batista de Moraes, Lucélia Luna Melo-Diaz, Lílian Pereira Ferrari, Herberto José Chong‐Neto, Nelson Augusto Rosário Filho

Bibliographic record

VenueCuadernos de Educación y Desarrollo · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and Angioedema
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsHereditary angioedemaMedicineMutationAngioedemaGeneticsDermatologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a rare and severe genetic autosomal dominant disease of the immune system, caused by a deficiency of C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH). Classified into 3 subtypes: HAE with quantitative deficiency of the C1-INH inhibitor, C1-INH dysfunction, and normal C1-INH.The objective is to present a protocol examining the evidence on the relationship between mutations, clinical manifestations and prognosis in AEH. A systematic review will be conducted according to the steps: formulation of the clinical question (PICO), protocol with inclusion and exclusion criteria, conduction of a broad bibliographical search, extraction and summary of the included studies. This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Evidence will be obtained from the Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases in the last 10 years. The selection of descriptors will be conducted using the Health Sciences Descriptors (DeCs), with the Boolean operators “AND and OR”, which will result in a search strategy for each proposed database. The selection will be conducted by two independent reviewers based on pre-determined criteria. In case of any discrepancy between the two reviewers, a third reviewer will mediate the conflict. Each study included will be assessed using the ROBINS-I, for the risk of bias, following the Oxford Evidence Base Center level of evidence and recommendation. Kappa Statistic will be used to assess inter-rater reliability. This systematic review will allow a greater understanding of HAE, and provide scientific evidence for healthcare professionals involved in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease.

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)0.001
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.338 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCuadernos de Educación y DesarrolloSame topicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and AngioedemaFrench-language works237,207