MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944197384 · doi:10.21693/1933-088x-10.2.78a

Highlighting our Pediatric Heroes

2011· article· en· W2944197384 on OpenAlexaff
Erika B. Rosenzweig

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Pulmonary Hypertension · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTributeTheme (computing)PsychologyHistoryMedicineArt historyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Pulmonary HypertensionSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207