MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6939925195 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.68714.v1

Frequency of serum autoantibodies to 21 autoantigens in 100 French Canadian patients with autoimmune myositis

2011· other· en· W6939925195 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2011
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoantibodyAntibodyMyositisPolymerase chain reactionAutoimmune diseaseAnti-thyroid autoantibodiesAutoimmunity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Copyright information:Taken from "Heterogeneity of autoantibodies in 100 patients with autoimmune myositis: insights into clinical features and outcomes"http://arthritis-research.com/content/9/4/R78Arthritis Research & Therapy 2007;9(4):R78-R78.Published online 9 Aug 2007PMCID:PMC2206383. Autoantibodies were observed to 19 (90%) of the specificities tested. Anti-OJ and anti-EJ (both anti-synthetases) were not detected. One or more autoantibodies were present in 80% of patients. Autoantibodies to synthetases (Jo-1, PL-7, PL-12, and KS) and systemic sclerosis autoantibodies were present overall in 22% and 9% of patients, respectively. The overall frequency is over 100% because 44% of patients had more than one autoantibody. Anti-Ro were determined by ALBIA whereas anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 fine specificities were identified by ELISA. See Materials and methods (in the text) for a description of immunoasssays. ALBIA, addressable laser bead immunoassay; CENP, centromere protein; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; RNAPOLIII, RNA polymerase III; SRP, signal recognition particle; TOPO, topoisomerase I.

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→