MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2412883552 · doi:10.1097/mpg.0b013e3182605070

Commentaries on “Workshop Report

2012· letter· en· W2412883552 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael J. Rosen, Lee A. Denson, Subra Kugathasan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortInflammatory bowel diseaseCohort studyBiobankDiseaseTranslational researchProspective cohort studyPopulationFamily medicineRisk stratificationPediatricsIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthPathologyInternal medicineBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pediatric IBD studies have improved in quality and quantity because of multicenter collaborations rather than single-center reports. Carefully planned prospective cohort studies with biological materials are needed to translate new discoveries into clinical practice. In 2005, the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of America (CCFA) established priorities in pediatric IBD science (1) and created a pediatric network with solid infrastructure, including financial sustainability, geographic diversity, and freedom from commercial bias, to undertake clinical trials, quality improvement projects, and translational research. This network has 43 centers across North America and has approximately 2000 newly diagnosed children with IBD enrolled in a translational research project. DNA, sera, stool, and intestinal biopsies taken at the time of diagnosis are banked, allowing eventual analyses for biomarkers and of “causal” models linking exposure to disease risk, disease progression, and risk stratification; however, the CCFA Pediatric Network remains a convenience cohort, prone to selection bias, and lacking the denominator data of a population-based cohort. A cohort that captures every single new diagnosis of IBD would be unique among existing IBD cohorts. A Canadian group is proposing the initiation of an exclusive pediatric IBD network and data platform that would accomplish this goal (2). The potential success of such a network centers around 2 unique strengths of Canadian pediatric IBD care: the vast majority of children with IBD in Canada are cared for by a relatively small number of centers, facilitating their chance to capture almost all of the pediatric patients with IBD in Canada; and the capability of linking with information-rich government administrative databases associated with the all-encompassing Canadian universal health care system. A few aspects of the proposed Canadian network will require further clarification. The goals for the network identified at this meeting remain broad. The investigators acknowledge that initial composition of infrastructure such as data platforms and biorepositories will need to be dictated by clear objectives. The design phase of the data management platform will inform the ability for data sharing within the existing network and enable future collaborative ancillary studies, which will capitalize on the increased power of a combined cohort. Mechanisms to support enrollment will need to be identified because the authors state that reimbursement for data collectors and study coordinators is unlikely in Canada. Enrolling patients and capturing follow-up visits in such a network, with careful attention to input of accurate data, requires a substantial amount of people power. Smaller centers will be challenged to participate without financial support for data collection. This could undermine the major strength of a true population-based cohort. For the CCFA Pediatric Network, the per-enrolled patient reimbursement structure is a key reason that enrollment rates have consistently exceeded expectations. A Canadian pediatric IBD research network will be a welcome addition and will complement existing networks. Successful implementation of a Canadian network will ensure a population-based IBD prospective cohort, routinely allowing the collection of several biological samples at different time points and facilitating the investigation of fundamental questions of disease pathogenesis and clinical course.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0410.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0880.048

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→