Dr. Reggia, <i>et al,</i> reply
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: We are pleased that our article1 has aroused interest from colleagues and we thank them for providing us valuable input for further analysis. We have considered the data presented by Monti, et al 2 in their Letter to the Editor regarding the good outcome obtained in a cohort of 21 patients after the switch from the intravenous (IV) to the subcutaneous (SC) formulation of abatacept (ABA). In their study, the risk of disease relapse appears to be lower than in our experience, even though about 40% of their patients presented moderate disease activity at the end of followup (6 mos after the switch). Within these, 21 patients (10%) showed an objective disease worsening. However, in general terms, the disease activity achieved during IV … Address correspondence to Dr. R. Reggia, Piazzale Spedali Civili 1, 25123 Brescia, Italy. E-mail: rossella.reggia{at}gmail.com
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".