Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir:FigureI read with great interest the special report by Drs. Itinteang et al. entitled “Pharmacologic Therapies for Infantile Hemangioma: Is There a Rational Basis?”1 The authors are to be congratulated for achieving a true advance toward understanding the pathogenesis of hemangioma and its response to pharmacologic therapy; recently, practitioners treating hemangioma have been intrigued by the favorable clinical response to propranolol (including our group2). However, until now, a model to describe a basis for its efficacy has been elusive. Their translational explanations as to how the basic science correlates with the pharmacology and physiology are most insightful. Furthermore, I had the pleasure of listening to Dr. Tan's presentation this past May at the 16th Congress of the International Confederation for Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, in 2011 in Vancouver, British Columbia, and without hesitation, this dissertation can be considered a highlight of the confederation's proceedings. Some questions are certain to stem from one's analysis of this article, specifically, pertaining to the response of hemangiomas to the different pharmacologic modalities. Why do certain tumors respond to corticosteroid and/or β-blocker therapy whereas others do not? Why does congenital hemangioma (i.e., rapidly involuting congenital hemangioma/noninvoluting congenital hemangioma) seldom respond to pharmacologic intervention? Should there be a similar response using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or even combined therapies that target the renin-angiotensin system? An illustration indicating the purported mechanism of action of the various pharmacologic modalities would be valuable. Clearly, scientific advances are often met by more questions than answers; however, these authors are to be congratulated on their strong body of work on this subject. I welcome their future contributions to the study of this most interesting tumor. Jugpal S. Arneja, M.D. Division of Plastic Surgery, University of British Columbia, and, British Columbia Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, [email protected]
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".