MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777318833 · doi:10.1002/ppul.23930

The highs and lows of wheezing: A review of the most popular adventitious lung sound

2017· review· en· W2777318833 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Pasterkamp

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Pulmonology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWheezeMedicineMeaning (existential)Sound (geography)Relevance (law)DocumentationLung functionAirway obstructionRespiratory soundsLungIntensive care medicineAsthmaAirwaySurgeryPsychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wheezing is the most widely reported adventitious lung sound in the English language. It is recognized by health professionals as well as by lay people, although often with a different meaning. Wheezing is an indicator of airway obstruction and therefore of interest particularly for the assessment of young children and in other situations where objective documentation of lung function is not generally available. This review summarizes our current understanding of mechanisms producing wheeze, its subjective perception and description, its objective measurement, and visualization, and its relevance in clinical practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric PulmonologySame topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207