Bibliographic record
Abstract
*Estudiante de X nivel de Medicina. Universidad Industrial de Santander. Bucaramanga. Santander. Colombia Correspondencia: Calle 60 #9-143 Ciudadela real de minas torres de San Remo torre 4 apto 11-01. e-mail: faa899@hotmail.com El trasplante de organos solidos se ha consolidado a traves de los anos como un eje alternativo en la terapeutica, contando con una estadistica de aproximadamente 70 000 procedimientos al ano y siendo una de las herramientas medicas mas significativas, particularmente en pacientes con enfermedad respiratoria avanzada1. A pesar de los torpidos resultados de los primeros trasplantes, durante los anos 80 el grupo Toronto logro satisfactoriamente el objetivo, aunque en terminos de supervivencia y calidad de vida se observaba un gran camino por recorrer2. A medida que se fueron recopilando las diversas experiencias de los equipos de trasplante alrededor del mundo, contribuyeron para llevar a cabo grandes avances en tecnicas de preservacion de tejidos, extraccion quirurgica, terapias inmunosupresoras y profilaxis antibioticas entre otras, procurando por obtener los mejores resultados posibles1. No obstante, el trasplante de organos ha suscitado planteamientos bioeticos tales como el concepto de la identidad propia, la muerte o la misma trascendencia despues de la muerte, convirtiendose en ciertas ocasiones en obstaculos para su practica1. Por tal razon, la escases de donantes ha jugado un rol limitante en esta alternativa pero, en paises tales como Espana (lider mundial en trasplante de organos solidos), la legislacion ha permitido conjugar el pensamiento de la libertad de la persona y el sentimiento de solidaridad estimulando la donacion de organos1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".