MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1489311713

Multidisciplinaire richtlijn "Verantwoord gebruik van biologicals"

2011· article· nl· W1489311713 on OpenAlexaff
J.W.J. Bijlsma, J W Annemarie Hagemeijer, Marc Bijl, T.L. Jansen, M.A.F.J. van de Laar, Robert Landewé, Michael T. Nurmohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Twente Research Information · 2011
Typearticle
Languagenl
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelinePsoriatic arthritisPsoriasisUlcerative colitisRheumatoid arthritisAnkylosing spondylitisUveitisDermatologyJuvenile rheumatoid arthritisInflammatory bowel diseaseImmunologyImmune systemArthritisDiseaseInternal medicinePathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A multidisciplinary working group has developed a practice guideline containing various recommendations on the responsible and efficient use of biologicals. These biologicals include both soluble immune-receptor proteins and monoclonal antibodies that are aimed at immune mediators, receptors or cells. They are produced by biotechnology. Biologicals are used to treat patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs) such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), psoriasis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, uveitis and sarcoidosis. This article summarises the most important recommendations contained in the practice guideline. The practice guideline is intended for members of the medical profession in addition to patients, who are considering, or are already, using biologicals

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.007

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.148 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueUniversity of Twente Research InformationSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207