Clinical presentation with 『PangYakHapPyon(方藥合編)』 in Korean medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study is to introduce the Clinical presentation and announce the importance of developing Clinical presentation of Korean medicine and suggest about development direction of Clinical presentation of Korean medicine. Methods: To Investigate the Clinical presentation used in western medicine. I think that Clinical presentation of Korean medicine is a systematic list of Korean medicine symptoms and a standard syndrome differentiation and treatment(). So I would like to offer PangYakHapPyon() as a basis for developing Clinical presentation of Korean medicine. Results: The clinical presentation term has become widespread in use at Calgary Medical college. Calgary Medical college created a list of 120 clinical presentations In 1991. In Korea, 101 clinical presentations were made in 2016. PangYakHapPyon() has been used effectively for over 130 years and widely used in the public. In addition, PangYakHapPyon() is summarized in the symptoms and prescriptions that occur frequently in Korea. Conclusions: For the globalization and standardization of Korean medicine, Clinical presentation of Korean medicine should be developed. The overall form of Clinical presentation of Korean medicine uses the form of Clinical presentation of Canada and a standard syndrome differentiation and treatment() for diagnosis and treatment is based PangYakHapPyon().
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".