Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIR: A paper by Kpodzo et al. [1] describes a case of subcutaneous infection caused by Alternaria alternata for which the abstract states that the identity of the isolate was obtained by phenotypic characterization and sequencing of the ITS and D1/D2 regions. The fungus was isolated and identified as a potential Alternaria by the Massachusetts General Hospital and credit for this work is given in the Acknowledgements. However, the extensive work that was done by the Fungus Testing Laboratory at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio was neither credited by an acknowledgement nor by authorship of the individuals responsible for the work of fungus identification, yet that information was fundamental to allowing these authors to publish their paper. Details of the work done at the Fungus Testing Laboratory including initial characterization of the isolate, generation of sequences from two regions of the rRNA gene, and analysis and re-interpretation of the results following sequencing, are outlined on page 545, column 1, paragraph 2. Although it is possible that the Fungus Testing Laboratory agreed to the use of their data in this way, it seems unlikely to me given that there is no acknowledgement of their assistance. Moreover, these contributions appear to meet the requirement for authorship as stated in the Instructions for Authors for Medical Mycology, i.e., authors are those who make a substantial contribution to acquisition of data, and/or analysis and interpretation of data. Finally, it is commendable that the isolate was sent for deposit in a culture collection, but also notable that neither sequence was sent for deposit in GenBank. Deposition of sequences is also a requirement for publication of a case report as indicated in the Instructions to Authors. Had the authors consulted with the lab or scientist that did the sequencing, they would have been aware of this requirement. In conclusion, it is disappointing that all the people who actually worked on the fungus have been excluded as authors of this paper. This paper was first published online on Early Online on 25 November 2011.
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 | 0.006 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.078 | 0.063 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
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".