Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dear reader: In the last edition of CUAJ, we proudly announced that we were indexed on PubMed with the National Library of Medicine (NLM), following extensive correspondence with them. We have since received clarity regarding our status. We have, in fact, been accepted to PubMed Central (PMC), but are not yet fully indexed on PubMed. We were not aware of the crucial distinction between enrolment in PMC and indexation on PubMed. We and our publishers thus interpreted our acceptance on PMC as confirmation of indexation on PubMed. In fact, PMC and PubMed are 2 different products offered by the NLM. CUAJ is now included in the Journals Database at the NLM. PMC is an online archive of full-text articles for about 400 journals — over half a million articles. Readers will be able to access CUAJ articles through the PMC website, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pmc. We have submitted our application for full indexation and await the final decision from the NLM. Once we receive indexation, it will be fully retroactive to Volume 1, Issue 1. The editors at CUAJ are disappointed, yet not bowed. Owing to the strong support we have had and continue to enjoy from the Canadian and international urology community, the quality of the content of the journal has been high. This, together with our outstanding editorial board, assures that we will be indexation-worthy. In this issue, we publish articles on a range of topics relevant to our rapidly evolving specialty. Dr. Mickelson and colleagues' article on pediatric urology competence emphasizes the divergence of different components of our specialty. There clearly is no consensus as to how much training in each subspecialty area is necessary for competence. Seventy-five percent of program directors but only 41% of pediatric urologists surveyed thought that residents had sufficient exposure to pediatric urology in their training. A thoughtful commentary by Dr. Karen Psooy emphasizes the challenges this represents for the Royal College subspecialty committee. Dr. Pearce and colleagues' comparison of recommendations by Canadian urologists and radiation oncologists on the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer is consistent with previous studies demonstrating our predictability in privileging our own treatment modality. If anything, radiation oncologists seem to be a little more aggressive than urologists. Both groups support PSA screening, but more radiation oncologists would screen men over age 80. What is interesting is the degree of similarity. Despite marked differences in training and in systems of reimbursement, the overall approach to most patients seems similar (beyond the preference for one's own modality). As Dr. Joseph Chin points out in his commentary, there are great advantages for our specialties to continue to work together. We present an excellent review of bladder cancer biomarkers, with an appropriate focus on the negative predictive value of individual markers. In addition, this issue contains 2 highly informed and strongly worded opposing opinion pieces on the relative merits of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer. As always, we welcome your views on the controversial subjects addressed by these articles. I will be inaugurated as the CUA president at the annual meeting this June. We believe that continuity of the editor is important at this phase, and I will continue in the position. We will delegate some of the CUAJ editorial tasks to members of our editorial board. See you in Edmonton!
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,039 | 0,305 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,047 | 0,036 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,015 | 0,021 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,209 | 0,362 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».