Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a clear need for more evidence as to how to deal with asymptomatic congenital thoracic malformations (CTMs), and thus the recent series from Great Ormond Street Hospital1 and the accompanying editorial2 are to be welcomed; however, the evidence review is incomplete. The risk of complications in non-operated CTMs after the postnatal period over around a decade was estimated at 3.2% in a meta-analysis.3 Although pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB) may develop de novo postnatally, undoubtedly PPB may develop in a CTM, as may other malignancies, and the biggest population based study from Canada estimated the risk of PPB as 4% in ‘benign’ resected CTM;4 worryingly there were no radiological features to differentiate them. Unfortunately, and contrary to the editorial statement,2 complete resection of a CTM does not eliminate the risk of malignancy.5 6 Finally, rare but fatal cases of air embolism in adults with a CTM during commercial flight have been described.7 8 Clearly the vast majority of CTMs remain asymptomatic for decades, posing a difficult decision for already anxious parents with a totally well infant. I suggest the above data should be shared with parents in an open discussion, so that informed choices can be made. Personally, I consider the risks of thoracoscopic surgery in competent hands should be far less than the risk of complications, and advocate elective removal of all but the most trivial CTMs, while respecting the views of parents and professionals who disagree. Certainly the follow-up protocol proposed by Cook et al for those non-resected CTMs should be tested prospectively in the sort of big international study which will be truly definitive.
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 | 0.029 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".