MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978600539 · doi:10.1542/pir.2019-40s40

Forty Years’ Experience

2019· editorial· en· W2978600539 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph A. Zenel, Hugh D. Allen

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatrics in Review · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheme (computing)Continuing medical educationMedicineCertificationPediatricsMedical educationContinuing educationComputer scienceManagementWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pediatrics in Review began as a supplement bundled with the July 1979 issue of the journal Pediatrics. The month prior in Pediatrics, Dr Robert Haggerty stated, “…Pediatrics in Review (is) a major activity in continuing education of the American Academy of Pediatrics. This 32-page supplement will be included with all copies of Pediatrics for the next two issues…. Each issue will contain four to six review articles and several abstracts, together with questions that will allow the reader to determine whether he or she has retained the main points of the article…. Most of the information in each issue of Pediatrics in Review has been selected on the basis of educational objectives developed by joint task forces of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Board of Pediatrics. These task forces are composed of practitioners and teachers…. Try it, we hope you will like it!” (1)Forty years later the journal is so well liked that its page number (now an average of 48 pages), issue number, and page content have markedly expanded. Review articles now have strength of evidence summary key points, references, teaching slides, and quiz questions eligible for continuing medical education credit and for Part 2 Maintenance of Certification credit. Each new issue has an In Brief feature or 2 focusing on a particular pediatrics theme, condensing important content from pediatric abstracts. Many years ago, Editor Emeritus Dr Lawrence F. Nazarian introduced case presentations into the journal, inviting readers to submit their interesting cases. Now the journal has 2 very popular features, Index of Suspicion and Visual Diagnosis, that are the most frequently first-read parts of the journal. Pediatrics in Review has also expanded online with supplemental articles and with blogs by members of the editorial board and others.In his editorial “One Year’s Experience,” Dr Haggerty, reflecting on the first 10 published issues of Pediatrics in Review, said, “What have we learned in this first year?.... Not all of every issue will appeal to our readers but I hope that all will find the majority of material in each issue useful…. I hope that we have helped you and all other pediatricians in your continuing education in clinical pediatrics.” (2)Forty years later the journal seems quite useful, with a current circulation of 34,000 subscribers and 1.7 million viewers online around the world—the most-read pediatrics review journal in the world. The journal is published and widely read in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, the United Kingdom, India, Egypt, and the Philippines. Excerpts of the journal are republished and read elsewhere.In keeping with the original plan to have “practitioners and teachers,” Pediatrics in Review’s editorial board continues to consist of diverse, enthusiastic, junior and senior general pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists in academia and private practice who thoughtfully select manuscripts based on 2 driving principles: the need to address recognized knowledge gaps in pediatric practice and the need to teach subjects important for continued maintenance of certification. It is this editorial board that suggested we publish a 40th-year supplement, bundled with the October 2019 issue.All of us on the editorial board thank the American Academy of Pediatrics and its staff for the opportunity to share the spirit behind Pediatrics in Review. In this 40th-year supplement, we sampled what was, what is, and what’s to come in pediatrics. We hope you like it.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.418 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatrics in ReviewSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207