Cystic fibrosis and neonatal screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical and diagnostic aspects of cystic fibrosis have been extensively reviewed, with an emphasis on neonatal screening. This systematic literature review involved a search for relevant contributions in the PubMed and SciELO databases. The first references to cystic fibrosis date to the Middle Ages. Cystic fibrosis is the most frequent autosomal recessive hereditary disease among Caucasians (1:2,000 to 3,500). More than 1,000 mutations lead to the disease, the most common being "F508, with 70% prevalence among Canadian, Northern European, and American Caucasians and 23 to 55% prevalence among Brazilians. The basic defect is in chloride ion secretion. Cystic fibrosis screening has long been controversial, and after almost three decades, there are few nationwide programs (most are regional or local). However, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has concluded that screening for cystic fibrosis is justified. The lack of a specific screening test and the ethnic heterogeneity of the Brazilian population pose challenges for neonatal screening.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".