MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412203440 · doi:10.1159/000547305

Guillain-Barré Syndrome in Chile: Incidence and Mortality (2013–2019)

2025· article· en· W4412203440 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Idiáquez, Rodrigo Salinas, Gabriel Cea

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroepidemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Guillain-Barre syndromePopulationDemographyMortality ratePediatricsRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare autoimmune disorder of the peripheral nervous system with incidence rates varying across regions. Based on hospital discharge data, this study aimed to analyze the incidence and mortality of GBS in Chile between 2013 and 2019. METHODS: A retrospective review of GBS cases, identified using the ICD-10 code G61.0, was conducted using national hospital discharge records. The incidence rates were calculated annually and adjusted for the population. Demographic and clinical variables, including sex, age, insurance type, and outcomes, were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1,696 cases were identified, yielding an annual incidence rate of 1.46 per 100,000 (95% CI: 1.28-2.64). Most cases occurred in males (58.8%), with a mean age of 46.62 years. The mortality rate was 1.7%, and the high survival rate was 98.3%. CONCLUSION: The incidence of GBS in Chile is comparable to the global rates, with a slight male predominance and a high survival rate. Further studies are warranted to explore the potential rurality and climatic factors influencing GBS incidence in Chile. .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroepidemiologySame topicPeripheral Neuropathies and DisordersFrench-language works237,207