MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003044105 · doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(19)30368-6

Sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome in individuals of European ancestry: a genome-wide association study

2020· article· en· W3003044105 on OpenAlexaff
Beatriz Guillén‐Guío, José M. Lorenzo-Salazar, Shwu‐Fan Ma, Pei‐Chi Hou, Tamara Hernández-Beeftink, Almudena Corrales, M. Isabel García-Laorden, Jonathan Jou, Elena Espinosa, Arturo Muriel, David Domínguez, Leonardo Lorente, María M. Martín, Carlos Rodríguez‐Gallego, Jordi Solé‐Violán, Alfonso Ambrós, Demetrio Carriedo, Jesús Blanco, José M. Añón, John P. Reilly, Tiffanie K. Jones, C.A.G. Ittner, Rui Feng, Franziska Schöneweck, Michael Kiehntopf, Imre Noth, Markus Scholz, Frank M. Brunkhorst, André Scherag, Nuala J. Meyer, Jesús Villar, Carlos Flores

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Respiratory Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersEuropean Social FundNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCenter for Sepsis Control and CareEuropean Regional Development FundInstituto de Salud Carlos IIINovo NordiskMinisterie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en WetenschapNational Institutes of HealthBayer HealthCareAstraZenecaPfizer
KeywordsMedicineGenome-wide association studySepsisAcute respiratory distressRespiratory distressMEDLINEIntensive care medicineAssociation (psychology)Genetic associationPediatricsInternal medicineSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneticsGenotypeGeneSurgeryLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations73
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Respiratory MedicineSame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207