MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7042917392

Proteomic analysis of human cerebrospinal fluid from patients with painful and non-painful degenerative disc disease

2009· dissertation· en· W7042917392 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDegenerative diseaseDegenerative DisorderDegenerative disc diseaseAsymptomaticCerebrospinal fluidInflammationLow back pain
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the primary causes of persistent lumbar back pain is degenerative disc disease (DDD). In most persons, DDD is a normal process occurring with natural age, while in others, DDD results in chronic pain. While imaging techniques can be used to detect degenerative changes, there is a low correlation between the extent of degenerative changes and the pain found upon physical evaluation, suggesting biochemical factors may be involved with the persistent pain state. The purpose of this study was to examine human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for changes in protein expression using high throughput proteomics technology, which would help to identify biochemical factors involved with DDD and low back pain. Differences at the protein level were observed in the CSF of persons with asymptomatic and painful degenerative disc disease. Markers of inflammation were altered in patients with degenerative disc disease. In the case of painful degenerative disc disease, our results suggest altered neuropeptide processing and nerve damage may be playing a role in the disease.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology→French-language works237,207→