MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165334211 · doi:10.1177/000992280003900103

Pulmonary Function Following Blastomycosis in Childhood

2000· article· en· W2165334211 on OpenAlexaff
S. Alkrinawi, Paolo T. Pianosi

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pediatrics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPleural and Pulmonary Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlastomycosisLung functionDermatologyIntensive care medicineLungInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to determine the pulmonary outcome following blastomycosis during childhood, we compiled a case series of hospitalized patients from a retrospective review with later recall for pulmonary function testing, coupled with prospective measurements of pulmonary function in three patients, at a tertiary care children's hospital. A convenience sample of five of 17 patients hospitalized with pulmonary blastomycosis, whose mean age at the time of diagnosis was 10.6 +/- 5.5 years, was recalled at a mean of 4.5 +/- 3.5 years after diagnosis. Three patients more recently hospitalized underwent serial pulmonary function testing (PFT) prospectively from as soon after the acute infection as their condition permitted. All but two patients had normal PFT when last seen. The two patients with persistent pulmonary sequelae were among those followed up prospectively and had more severe clinical and radiographic pictures at the outset. Pulmonary function in children who suffered from pulmonary blastomycosis is normal in most patients at follow-up years later. Severe radiographic disease and slow recovery over months portend long-term sequelae.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical PediatricsSame topicPleural and Pulmonary DiseasesFrench-language works237,207