MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W49926302 · doi:10.1177/088307380502000303

Incongruent Cerebral Growth in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

2005· article· en· W49926302 on OpenAlexaff
Hazim Kadhim, Guillaume Sébire, Monia Khalifa, Philippe Evrard, José Groswasser, Patricia Franco, André Kahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsHôpital FleurimontUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSudden infant death syndromeMedicineHead circumferencePediatricsCerebral edemaPopulationSudden deathCardiologyAnesthesiaBirth weightBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sudden infant death syndrome remains a leading cause of post-neonatal mortality in developed countries. Its etiopathogenic mechanisms are unknown. In this neuropathologic study, we noticed that the weights of the brains of infants who died from sudden infant death syndrome (n = 97) were invariably heavier in comparison with those of a group of age-matched controls (n = 23) issuing from the same local population. Brain edema was not a major element, and there were no significant microscopic or macroscopic cerebral anomalies in the brains from either of the study groups. Head circumference did not show a parallel increase in infants with sudden infant death syndrome. The excessive brain weight might reflect abnormal cerebral development and could be detrimental to vital neural control. In a previous study, we disclosed cytokine overexpression in the brains of these victims. Whether increased brain weight is linked to cytokine up-regulation remains, however, a moot case and merits further exploration.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207