Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first half of the 20th century, poliomyelitis was widely feared.It often struck without warning, was highly contagious, and affected large, young populations, causing prolonged or permanent flaccid paralysis or death.There are arresting and disturbing accounts of the explosive nature of polio epidemics and the response of communities to these outbreaks.1 The effective control of poliomyelitis throughout most of the world has been a remarkable story of scientific and social progress.However, "wild" poliomyelitis is still endemic in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent, and it continues to occur sporadically elsewhere.In addition, there is a small incidence of vaccine induced polio in infants and adults.Global eradication remains a goal of the World Health Organization and of public health policies throughout the world, with the eventual discontinuation of routine immunisation.[2][3][4] Acute poliomyelitis is now rarely encountered in the United Kingdom, but "imported" poliomyelitis still occurs and it is necessary to distinguish acute poliomyelitis from other causes of acute flaccid paralysis.Despite the obvious success of preventive policies, many patients who had poliomyelitis experience late functional deterioration after periods of prolonged stability-the so called postpolio syndrome.The patterns of disability and their management present unique challenges to the multidisciplinary rehabilitation team. MethodsThis review is based on personal experience and the advice of numerous physicians and surgeons, in particular the combined expertise of my colleagues at the Lane Fox Unit at St Thomas' Hospital.In preparing the article, I accessed archive literature, departmental review papers, 5 6 the library, Medline searches via Ovid, and websites of patient groups involved in the care of people with polio and postpolio functional deterioration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".