MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154653326 · doi:10.1136/jcp.2005.031260

An approach to duodenal biopsies

2006· review· en· W2154653326 on OpenAlexaff
Stefano Serra, Prashant Jani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsyEndoscopyMedicineDigestive tractDuodenumPathologyDuodenal ulcerRadiologyGastroenterologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of endoscopy of the upper digestive tract as a routine diagnostic procedure has increased the number of duodenal biopsy specimens. Consequently, the pathologist is often asked to evaluate them. In this review, a practical approach to the evaluation of a duodenal biopsy specimen is discussed. An overview of the handling of specimens is given and the normal histology and commonly encountered diseases are discussed. Finally, a description of commonly seen infections is provided, together with an algorithmic approach for diagnosis.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.007

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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations162
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207