MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900134785 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.170206

Diagnosis and management of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a clinical practice guideline

2018· article· en· W2900134785 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pramod S. Puligandla, Erik D. Skarsgard, Martin Offringa, Ian Adatia, Robert Baird, Mary Brindle, Priscilla Chiu, Arthur Cogswell, Shyamala Dakshinamurti, Hélène Flageole, Richard Keijzer, Douglas McMillan, Titilayo Oluyomi-Obi, Thomas Pennaforte, Thérèse Perreault, Sean P. Riley, Greg Ryan, Anne Synnes, Michael D. Traynor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreMount Sinai HospitalCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMcMaster Children's HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of AlbertaChildren's Hospital of WinnipegHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité LavalBC Children's HospitalFoothills Medical CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCongenital diaphragmatic herniaMedicinePulmonary hypoplasiaDiaphragm (acoustics)Diaphragmatic herniaThorax (insect anatomy)HypoplasiaDiaphragmatic breathingHerniaGuidelinePulmonary hypertensionLungSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicineAnatomyPathologyPregnancyGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

KEY POINTS Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), which occurs in about 1 in 3300 live births, is a congenital defect in the diaphragm that allows herniation of abdominal viscera into the thorax.[1][1] The resulting abnormal lung development leads to pulmonary hypoplasia and pulmonary hypertension,

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations246
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesFrench-language works237,207