MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989687656 · doi:10.1159/000209850

Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: Comparison of Animal Models and Relevance to the Human Situation

2009· review· en· W1989687656 on OpenAlex
Rhiannon B. van Loenhout, Dick Tibboel, Martin Post, Richard Keijzer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeonatology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersStichting de Drie Lichten
KeywordsCongenital diaphragmatic herniaPulmonary hypoplasiaMedicineEtiologyPulmonary hypertensionDiaphragmatic herniaAnimal modelHypoplasiaDiaphragmatic breathingHerniaIntensive care medicinePathogenesisClinical significancePediatricsInternal medicineSurgeryPathologyBiologyPregnancyFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) occurs in 1 in 3,000 newborns. Mortality and morbidity are due to the amount of pulmonary hypoplasia (PH), the response on artificial ventilation and the presence of therapy-resistant pulmonary hypertension. The pathogenesis and etiology of CDH and its associated anomalies are still largely unknown despite all research efforts over the past years. Several animal models have been proposed to study CDH. In this review we compare surgical, pharmacological and transgenic models, and discuss their strengths and limitations to study PH.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.309 · 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