MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Of Mermaids and Mountains: Three Decades of Prompt Activation <i>in Vivo</i>

2000· review· en· W2144057490 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. D. Morgan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutron activation analysisNuclear medicineRadiochemistryNeutron activationNeutronChemistryMedicineNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During 1966 to 1972, several laboratories demonstrated the feasibility of measuring the major body elements H, N, Ca, and Cl by prompt gamma in vivo neutron activation analysis (PGIVNA). The MERMAID facility in Birmingham, England used a cyclotron-produced pulsed neutron beam, but other groups in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and New Zealand subsequently developed systems based on radioisotope neutron sources that could measure body nitrogen with a precision of a margin of error of a few percentage points. The accuracy of N measurement was greatly enhanced by Vartsky's internal standardization, using prompt-gamma H as the marker and total body hydrogen (based on total body water and skinfolds) as the reference. Chlorine and extracellular water volume were used in a similar way by the Swansea group to calibrate the prompt-gamma analysis of total body calcium. The PGIVNA technique is most valuable in assessing nutritional status, particularly in relation to body protein.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations22
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207