MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407381016 · doi:10.9734/ijmpcr/2025/v18i1412

Comprehensive Approach to Guillain-Barre Syndrome: A Case Report

2025· article· en· W4407381016 on OpenAlexaff
Yashwanth Gowda Y D, Geeta Moger, Praveen Kumar, A Rohith

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuillain-Barre syndromePlasmapheresisWeaknessPopulationPediatricsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyAnesthesiaSurgeryImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) is an autoimmune disorder of the peripheral nervous system that often presents with progressive limb weakness and sensory disturbances. Globally, the incidence rate of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) is approximately 0.001% to 0.002% of the population annually, or 1-2 cases per 100,000 people. Presentation of Case: A 61-year-old male presented with severe lower back pain, progressing to limb weakness and tingling. Diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) with motor axonal neuropathy and albumin-cytological dissociation via nerve conduction studies, CSF analysis, and imaging, he was treated with plasmapheresis, IVIG, antibiotics for a suspected UTI, neuroprotective medications, and physiotherapy. The patient showed significant motor improvement and stable vitals post-treatment. Discussion and Conclusion: We discuss the treatment included plasmapheresis, IVIG, antibiotics, physiotherapy, and neuroprotective medications. The patient showed significant improvement, with enhanced limb strength and stable vitals, and is now focusing on rehabilitation and long-term care.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.353 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Case ReportsSame topicPeripheral Neuropathies and DisordersFrench-language works237,207