Response by Kusters et al to Letter Regarding Article, “Effect of Rosuvastatin on Carotid Intima-Media Thickness in Children With Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia: The CHARON Study (Hypercholesterolemia in Children and Adolescents Taking Rosuvastatin Open Label)”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
sponsorship: Dr Langslet has received advisory board fees from Amgen, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr McCrindle has received consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Medpace, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb and research support from AstraZeneca. Dr Cassiman serves as a clinical investigator for the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders. Dr Francis has been a member of the speakers board or an advisor to Aegerion, Alexion, Amgen, Sanofi, and Valeant. Dr Gagne has participated in studies sponsored by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genzyme, Isis, Merck/Schering-Plow, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr Gaudet has served as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Amgen, Novartis, Isis, Uniqure, and Catabasis. Dr Morrison has received research support from AstraZeneca. Dr Stein has received consultant and expert witness fees from AstraZeneca regarding statins. Dr Kastelein has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Merck, Merck/Schering-Plow, Isis, Genzyme, and Sanofi-Aventis; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck/Schering-Plow, Roche, Isis, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Pfizer, Isis, Genzyme, Roche, Novartis, Merck, Merck/Schering-Plow, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr Hutten has received an independent grant for learning and change from Pfizer. Drs Miller, Raichlen, and Martin are employees of AstraZeneca. The other authors report no conflicts. (Amgen, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Medpace, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Genzyme, Isis, Merck/Schering-Plow, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott)
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 | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
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".