MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410136776 · doi:10.1055/s-0034-1373683

Nierensteine – Prophylaktische Antibiose bei Stoßwellenlithotripsie?

2014· letter· de· W2410136776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAktuelle Urologie · 2014
Typeletter
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Im Hinblick auf die Antibiotikaprophylaxe bei der extrakorporalen Stoßwellenlithotripsie (ESWL) von Nierensteinen gibt es unterschiedliche Auffassungen: Die American Urological Association empfiehlt sie grundsätzlich, im Gegensatz dazu stehen die europäische Leitlinien, die sie nur bei Risikopatienten empfehlen. Eine Gruppe aus Toronto hat die Wertigkeit gezielter antimikrobieller Prophylaxe untersucht. J Urol 2013; 189: 2112–2117 mit Kommentar

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.035

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.236 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAktuelle UrologieSame topicUrinary Tract Infections ManagementFrench-language works237,207