MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evolution in pediatric health care

2010· review· en· W1532195184 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen J. Genuis

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatrics International · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEHealth careDiseaseAlternative medicineClinical PracticeGovernment (linguistics)Public healthFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is disturbing evidence of escalating chronic disease among children--a phenomenon that is extracting a heavy toll from individuals, families, and health-care systems. METHODS: This review was prepared by assessing medical and scientific literature available from Medline, as well as by reviewing numerous books, conference proceedings, and government publications. RESULTS: Knowledge translation in medical science, the process whereby new research is incorporated into clinical practice, remains lethargic. Nutritional and environmental factors have recently been recognized as common determinants of modern illness, and various diagnostic techniques in molecular medicine are now available to facilitate diagnosis of disease etiology. CONCLUSIONS: A re-evaluation of the current pediatric clinical paradigm is required in light of emerging research from fields such as epigenetics, molecular medicine and environmental health. Education about these branches of medical science should be integrated into pediatric medical education, and important research information from these disciplines should be incorporated into public health care and clinical practice relating to children.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.331
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
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatrics InternationalSame topicNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207