MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6920394638 · doi:10.60692/qdyyy-6kr96

Report of the First International Consensus on Standardized Nomenclature of Antinuclear Antibody HEp-2 Cell Patterns 2014–2015

2015· article· en· W6920394638 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnti-nuclear antibodyNomenclatureAutoantibodyAutoimmunityConsensus conferenceTest (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 12th International Workshop on Autoantibodies and Autoimmunity (IWAA) held in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on August 28, 2014, a full day session was devoted to establishing a consensus on the nomenclature of staining patterns observed in the antinuclear antibody (ANA) indirect immunofluorescence test on HEp-2 cells. The current report summarizes the collective agreements with input from the host Brazilian and international communities that represented research, clinical, and diagnostic service laboratories. Patterns are categorized in three major groups (nuclear, cytoplasmic, and mitotic patterns) and each pattern has been defined and described in detail. The consensus nomenclature and representative patterns are made available online at the International Consensus on Antinuclear antibody Pattern (ICAP) website (www.ANApatterns.org). To facilitate continuous improvement and input, specific comments on ICAP are encouraged and these will be discussed in subsequent ICAP meetings. The ultimate goal with the establishment of the ICAP is to promote harmonization and understanding of autoantibody test nomenclature, as well as interpretation guidelines for ANA testing, thereby optimizing usage in patient 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)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicPluripotent Stem Cells Research→French-language works237,207→