MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907296136 · doi:10.1097/mpg.0000000000002246

Management of Juvenile Polyposis Syndrome in Children and Adolescents

2018· review· en· W2907296136 on OpenAlexaff
Shlomi Cohen, Warren Hyer, Emmanuel Mas, Marcus Auth, Thomas M. Attard, Johannes Spalinger, Andrew Latchford, Carol Durno

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationMount Sinai HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatologyPosition paperPediatric gastroenterologyPediatricsFamily medicineJuvenileInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) Polyposis Working Group developed recommendations to assist clinicians and health care providers with appropriate management of patients with juvenile polyposis. This is the first juvenile polyposis Position Paper published by ESPGHAN with invited experts. Many of the published studies were descriptive and/or retrospective in nature, consequently after incorporating a modified version of the GRADE system many of the recommendations are based on expert opinion. This ESPGHAN Position Paper provides a guide for diagnosis, assessment, and management of juvenile polyposis syndrome in children and adolescents, and will be helpful in the appropriate management and timing of procedures in children and adolescents. The formation of international collaboration and consortia is proposed to monitor patients prospectively to advance our understanding of juvenile polyposis conditions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
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

Citations101
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and NutritionSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207