MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101994431 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.1079

Dealing with vesicoureteral reflux in children

2013· article· en· W2101994431 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Walid A. Farhat

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVesicoureteral refluxMedicineUrologyRefluxInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

t is clear from the paper by Tamarkina and colleagues 1 that as we know more about the pathophysiology of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) in children, we know less on how to manage these patients.The pendulum is swinging toward pre-emptively treating patients with VUR, though we know that this entity is a benign condition and may not need any surgical or medical intervention.The authors raise many concerns in the treatment of VUR, the least being antibiotic prophylaxis; of note, after using the different medical approaches over past decades, flags are now being raised about the possible complications associated with antibiotics.Furthermore, we are not yet sure of the longterm outcome of deflux in the patients that we have already treated (e.g., local inflammatory changes or persistent resolution of reflux).A critical question may arise when treating patients with VUR pre-emptively: what are we going to do for patients in whom this "incidental anesthetic" approach fails?Are we going to bring them back to the operating room, or are we going to keep them on antibiotics and just watch them?Although there is a role for deflux in the treatment armamentarium of VUR management, it is clear that the "inci-

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207