Portal Hypertension in Children: Expert Pediatric Opinion on the Report of the Baveno V Consensus Workshop on Methodology of Diagnosis and Therapy in Portal Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shneider BL, Bosch J, de Franchis R, Emre SH, Groszmann RJ, Ling SC, Lorenz JM, Squires RH, Superina RA, Thompson AE, Mazariegos GV. Portal Hypertension in Children: Expert Pediatric Opinion on the Report of the Baveno V Consensus Workshop on Methodology of Diagnosis and Therapy in Portal Hypertension. Abstract: Complications of portal hypertension in children lead to significant morbidity and are a leading indication for consideration of liver transplantation. Approaches to the management of sequelae of portal hypertension are well described for adults and evidence‐based approaches have been summarized in numerous meta‐analyses and conferences. In contrast, there is a paucity of data to guide the management of complications of portal hypertension in children. An international panel of experts was convened on April 8, 2011 at The Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC to review and adapt the recent report of the Baveno V Consensus Workshop on the Methodology of Diagnosis and Therapy in Portal Hypertension to the care of children. The opinions of that expert panel are reported.
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 | 0.101 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".