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
Mild bleeding disorders are a common reason for a referral to a hematologist and these conditions can be challenging to evaluate. Recent research has highlighted that some bleeding symptoms are quite common in the general population and that there is clinical variability in symptom expression among individuals with defined bleeding problems. Moreover, bleeding risks for many bleeding disorders are unknown. This article reviews symptoms and problems that can be considered suspicious of a mild form of bleeding disorder and the diagnostic investigations useful to evaluate these problems. A stepwise approach is presented for the diagnostic evaluation, to allow detection of common and rare coagulation and fibrinolytic defects, and adequate assessments of potential von Willebrand factor and platelet problems. Some common problems in the diagnosis and management of mild bleeding problems are reviewed, including the common failure to establish a diagnosis with testing. An approach is proposed for translation of knowledge to patients who are challenged by mild bleeding problems.
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 | 0.000 | 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