MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405395005 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxae100

Acute flaccid paralysis: A call for clinical vigilance

2024· article· en· W4405395005 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicole Salem, Elsie Grudeski, Tim Booth, Disha Bhagat, Marina I. Salvadori

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of ManitobaPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlaccid paralysisAcute flaccid paralysisVigilance (psychology)MedicineParalysisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAudiologyPsychologyVirologyCognitive psychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A previously healthy, 3-year-old male presented to a paediatric emergency department. His parents described a mild illness with low-grade fever, sore throat, headache, and asymmetric weakness in his legs, especially on the left. The paediatrician could not elicit deep tendon reflexes of the left knee. She thought his neck might be a bit stiff. The family had returned from visiting friends and family in Pakistan 6 days prior. The child was unvaccinated. The paediatrician spoke to a paediatric neurologist and organized magnetic resonance imaging and then a lumbar puncture. She considered poliovirus infection in her differential diagnosis and immediately notified the local public health unit of a possible case. The child was admitted to a private room with routine and contact precautions. Given the suspicion of poliovirus infection, samples were sent to the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) for testing. Two stool samples were collected at least 24 hours apart for poliovirus testing. Poliovirus testing was negative, and the patient was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome. The case was reported to the local public health unit and to the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program. A neurological follow-up was scheduled 60 days following the onset of paralysis/weakness.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designNot applicable
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicCardiac Structural Anomalies and RepairFrench-language works237,207