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
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it