Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last issue of Advances in Pulmonary Hypertension that was devoted to a pediatric theme was published 5 years ago, so I thought it fitting to run another pediatric issue and to highlight some of our pediatric PH heroes. If you look closely at the cover, you'll see the same 5 children who graced the cover 5 years ago. These children are the best testament to the advances in the field of PH and, likewise, the greatest motivators of the science and drive to find a cure. But, short of a cure, children battling PH just want to be kids. I believe pediatric clinicians need to focus on quality of life a lot more, as distance walked on a 6-minute walk test may not reveal whether a child with PH will be able to ride a bike, play baseball, go to a prom, or just be a kid. The children on the cover are prime examples of kids living with PH. In addition, as another tribute to our kids, we have a special twist in this issue in the “Ask the Expert” column. Myung Park, MD, has given up her post in this issue and permitted another pediatric PH patient to tell her story as a first hand “expert” on what it's like to struggle with the day-to-day issues of PH, failure of her medical therapy, and how a lung transplant gave her a new life. I want to thank the author, Jessa, personally for her honest account of her journey and her tremendous courage. She is a true hero! I also want to thank the authors for their expertise and wonderful pieces on pediatric PH-related issues and, of course, my editorial board and section editors for their commitment and devotion to the journal and the PH community. Finally, a very special thanks to my guest editor, Dunbar Ivy, MD. We collaborate frequently as we share a very similar mission toward having PH kids live the fullest lives they can within the constraints of their disease.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.011 |
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".