MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399500634 · doi:10.1177/01455613241261563

Short Cilia, Immunodeficiency, and Cystic Fibrosis in a Mother-Daughter Pair

2024· article· en· W4399500634 on OpenAlexaff
Marisa Dorling, Juan Carlos Hernaiz‐Leonardo, Athenea Pascual, Anita Nagy, Amin R. Javer

Bibliographic record

VenueEar Nose & Throat Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary ciliary dyskinesiaRefractory (planetary science)Cystic fibrosisMedicinePrimary immunodeficiencyImmunodeficiencyCommon variable immunodeficiencyMedical therapyDaughterDiseaseChronic rhinosinusitisPediatricsInternal medicineImmunologyBronchiectasisLungBiologyImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) that is refractory to maximal medical and surgical therapy should be evaluated for other primary conditions. Cystic fibrosis (CF), primary immunodeficiency (PID), and primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) are potential risk factors for refractory CRS. These conditions present with variable disease severity and diagnosis may be delayed into adulthood. We report a case of a mother-daughter pair with CRS refractory to maximal medical management. The patients were further evaluated and found to have features consistent with CF, PID, and PCD. All 3 are rare disorders and thought to cause CRS in isolation. Patients with refractory CRS should be further evaluated to identify alternative diagnoses and ensure proper management. Refractory CRS may be multifactorial, with different risk factors simultaneously contributing to its persistence.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designCase report
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 venueEar Nose & Throat JournalSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207