MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2978600539 · doi:10.1542/pir.2019-40s40

Forty Years’ Experience

2019· editorial· en· W2978600539 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph A. Zenel, Hugh D. Allen

Notice bibliographique

RevuePediatrics in Review · 2019
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueChild and Adolescent Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTheme (computing)Continuing medical educationMedicineCertificationPediatricsMedical educationContinuing educationComputer scienceManagementWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Pediatrics in Review began as a supplement bundled with the July 1979 issue of the journal Pediatrics. The month prior in Pediatrics, Dr Robert Haggerty stated, “…Pediatrics in Review (is) a major activity in continuing education of the American Academy of Pediatrics. This 32-page supplement will be included with all copies of Pediatrics for the next two issues…. Each issue will contain four to six review articles and several abstracts, together with questions that will allow the reader to determine whether he or she has retained the main points of the article…. Most of the information in each issue of Pediatrics in Review has been selected on the basis of educational objectives developed by joint task forces of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Board of Pediatrics. These task forces are composed of practitioners and teachers…. Try it, we hope you will like it!” (1)Forty years later the journal is so well liked that its page number (now an average of 48 pages), issue number, and page content have markedly expanded. Review articles now have strength of evidence summary key points, references, teaching slides, and quiz questions eligible for continuing medical education credit and for Part 2 Maintenance of Certification credit. Each new issue has an In Brief feature or 2 focusing on a particular pediatrics theme, condensing important content from pediatric abstracts. Many years ago, Editor Emeritus Dr Lawrence F. Nazarian introduced case presentations into the journal, inviting readers to submit their interesting cases. Now the journal has 2 very popular features, Index of Suspicion and Visual Diagnosis, that are the most frequently first-read parts of the journal. Pediatrics in Review has also expanded online with supplemental articles and with blogs by members of the editorial board and others.In his editorial “One Year’s Experience,” Dr Haggerty, reflecting on the first 10 published issues of Pediatrics in Review, said, “What have we learned in this first year?.... Not all of every issue will appeal to our readers but I hope that all will find the majority of material in each issue useful…. I hope that we have helped you and all other pediatricians in your continuing education in clinical pediatrics.” (2)Forty years later the journal seems quite useful, with a current circulation of 34,000 subscribers and 1.7 million viewers online around the world—the most-read pediatrics review journal in the world. The journal is published and widely read in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, the United Kingdom, India, Egypt, and the Philippines. Excerpts of the journal are republished and read elsewhere.In keeping with the original plan to have “practitioners and teachers,” Pediatrics in Review’s editorial board continues to consist of diverse, enthusiastic, junior and senior general pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists in academia and private practice who thoughtfully select manuscripts based on 2 driving principles: the need to address recognized knowledge gaps in pediatric practice and the need to teach subjects important for continued maintenance of certification. It is this editorial board that suggested we publish a 40th-year supplement, bundled with the October 2019 issue.All of us on the editorial board thank the American Academy of Pediatrics and its staff for the opportunity to share the spirit behind Pediatrics in Review. In this 40th-year supplement, we sampled what was, what is, and what’s to come in pediatrics. We hope you like it.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,246
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,003

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,057
Tête enseignante GPT0,475
Écart entre enseignants0,418 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePediatrics in ReviewMême sujetChild and Adolescent HealthTravaux en français237 207