MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127207039

The global Horus study

2025· other· en· W7127207039 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
RC Thompson, ML Sutherland, AH Allam, Alice Paladin, Albert Zink, LS Wann, JD Sutherland, B Frohlich

Bibliographic record

VenueView · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousCalcificationPaleopathologyAncient egyptArteryLate 19th century
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Global HORUS study aimed to determine how widespread atherosclerosis was in a large sample of mummified individuals. Adult mummies housed in 29 different museums and collections from around the world were studied with whole body CT scanning and were systematically reviewed for atherosclerotic arterial calcifications, interpreting by consensus. Sex and estimates of age at the time of death were established by participating bioarcheologists. Era of antiquity was obtained from museum records and, in 34 cases, from carbon-14 dating. Calcification in the wall of an identifiable artery was considered definite atherosclerosis and calcification along the expected course of an artery was considered probable atherosclerosis. Mummified remains derived from 7 different ancient populations (ancient Egyptians, ancient lowland Peruvians, ancient highland Andean, 19th century Unangan/Aleutian Islanders, 16th century Inuit, ancestral Puebloan, Middle-Ages Mongolian, plus a 19th century African American and an Indigenous Australian; females 36%, mean estimated age-at-death 40y) were examined. Definite or probable atherosclerosis was seen in 97 individuals (39%). Atherosclerotic calcifications were more common in longer-lived individuals (p<0.05) and were found in similar frequencies in Egyptians vs. non-Egyptians and in males vs. females.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViewFrench-language works237,207