Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue charts new territory for the Journal in a number of exciting ways. First, it is the beginning of the Journal's 26th year of publication. What better way to usher in a new quarter century than by increasing international participation in the Journal? Towards this end, I am delighted to formally announce our new affiliation with the European Society of Thoracic Imaging. I encourage you to read the announcement in this issue.1 Second, as we leave behind the silver anniversary cover of the past year and return to our traditional red cover, we are also moving forward with an updated design. Beginning with this issue, the cover now features a unique image or series of images from a current Journal article and a streamlined cover design. Third, we are introducing a new editorial feature entitled “Expert Opinion.” The goal of this feature is to tap into the expertise of leaders in the field regarding “hot topic” issues of interest to our readers. In this first installment, four experts (Lynne Hurwitz, John Mayo, Joe Schoepf, and Denis Tack) share their opinions regarding how to effectively manage radiation exposure related to cardiopulmonary imaging.2 I encourage you to read their insightful comments and practical recommendations about this timely topic. Fourth, in response to the recent early release of the preliminary results of the National Lung Screening Trial, this issue features two late-breaking editorials by two international leaders in the field of lung cancer screening. In these editorials, Claudia Henschke and Rob van Klaveren share their perspectives regarding the question “Is CT screening for lung cancer ready for prime time?”.3,4 The conversation about CT screening has only just begun. We look forward to continued engagement with our readers about this important and timely topic in the months ahead! Finally, this issue of the Journal covers new ground by featuring articles related to two nontraditional but timely topics: quality management and evidence-based medicine. I encourage you to read the outstanding features on these topics by Jeff Kanne5 and Janni Collins,6 as well as the evidence-based review of radiofrequency ablation of lung neoplasms by Jonathan Dodd and colleagues.7 As we usher in these new features, we continue to embrace the traditional elements of the Journal. In May 2011, we will publish a symposium devoted to lung cancer guest edited by Jane Ko and Barbara McComb, and in November 2011 we will feature a symposium on airway imaging guest edited by Philippe Grenier. As always, we will also be publishing an array of original articles, case reports and pictorial essays. I enthusiastically look forward to an exciting year ahead for the Journal. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of our outstanding contributors, reviewers, editors, and publication team, we are off to a great start!
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.430 | 0.393 |
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".