MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101074934 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000817

Medical emergencies in medical imaging

2012· letter· en· W2101074934 on OpenAlexaff
John A. Staples, Donald A. Redelmeier

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerbicide resistancePhenotypic plasticityResistance (ecology)Gene expressionGeneAdaptive responseWeedAdaptation (eye)BiologySelection (genetic algorithm)PhenotypeGeneticsEvolutionary biologyEcologyNeuroscienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Abstract</h3> Plastic phenotypic responses to environmental change are common, yet we lack a clear understanding of the fitness consequences of these plastic responses. Here, we use the evolution of herbicide resistance in the common morning glory (<i>Ipomoea purpurea</i>) as a model for understanding the relative importance of adaptive and maladaptive gene expression responses to herbicide. Specifically, we compare leaf gene expression changes caused by herbicide spray to the expression changes that evolve in response to artificial selection for herbicide resistance. We identify a number of genes that show plastic and evolved responses to herbicide and find that for the majority of genes with both plastic and evolved responses, plastic responses appear to be adaptive. We also find that selection for herbicide response increases gene expression plasticity. Overall, these results show the importance of adaptive plasticity for herbicide resistance in a common weed and that expression changes in response to strong environmental change can be adaptive.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Quality & SafetySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207