MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2908584742 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201809-1765le

PC20 versus PD20: Why Change a Scientifically Well-Established and Clinically Relevant Test?

2019· letter· en· W2908584742 on OpenAlexaff
Israel Amirav, Michael T. Newhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTest (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In summary, RR measurement studies would benefit from an uncertainty (probabilistic) approach to the reference standard, including procedures to measure and reduce this uncertainty (5).Continuous RR measurements, rather than single-threshold values, should be used to assess clinical uncertainty and corrections considered for other known covariates such as core body temperature.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0230.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→