MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003138881 · doi:10.3389/fendo.2019.00923

Standardised Nomenclature, Abbreviations, and Units for the Study of Bone Marrow Adiposity: Report of the Nomenclature Working Group of the International Bone Marrow Adiposity Society

2020· review· en· W3003138881 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Bravenboer, Miriam A. Bredella, Christophe Chauveau, Alessandro Corsi, Eleni Douni, William Frank Ferris, Mara Riminucci, Pamela Gehron Robey, Shanti Rojas‐Sutterlin, Clifford J. Rosen, Tim J. Schulz, William P. Cawthorn

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Endocrinology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematological disorders and diagnostics
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Research in Immunology and CancerUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Institutes of HealthIstituto Pasteur-Fondazione Cenci BolognettiNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungHarry Crossley FoundationMedical Research CouncilSapienza Università di RomaBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsNomenclatureTerminologyConsensus conferenceScientific evidenceMedicineComputer sciencePathologyBiologyInternal medicineTaxonomy (biology)LinguisticsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research into bone marrow adiposity (BMA) has expanded greatly since the late 1990s, leading to development of new methods for the study of bone marrow adipocytes. Simultaneously, research fields interested in BMA have diversified substantially. This increasing interest is revealing fundamental new knowledge of BMA; however, it has also led to a highly variable nomenclature that makes it difficult to interpret and compare results from different studies. A consensus on BMA nomenclature has therefore become indispensable. This article addresses this critical need for standardised terminology and consistent reporting of parameters related to BMA research. The International Bone Marrow Adiposity Society (BMAS) was formed in 2017 to consolidate the growing scientific community interested in BMA. To address the BMA nomenclature challenge, BMAS members from diverse fields established a working group (WG). Based on their broad expertise, the WG first reviewed the existing, unsystematic nomenclature and identified terms and concepts requiring further discussion. They thereby identified and defined 8 broad concepts and methods central to BMA research. Notably, these had been described using 519 unique combinations of term, abbreviation and unit, many of these were overlapping or redundant. On this foundation a second consensus was reached, with each term classified as ‘to use’ or ‘not to use’. As a result, the WG reached a consensus to craft recommendations for 26 terms related to concepts and methods in BMA research. This was approved by the Scientific Board and Executive Board of BMAS and is the basis for the present recommendations for a formal BMA nomenclature. As an example, several terms or abbreviations have been used to represent ‘bone marrow adipocytes’, including BMAds, BM-As, and BMAs. The WG decided that BMA should refer to ‘bone marrow adiposity’; that BM-A is too similar to BMA; and noted that ‘Ad’ has previously been recommended to refer to adipocytes. Thus, it was recommended to use BMAds to represent bone marrow adipocytes. In conclusion, the standard nomenclature proposed in this article should be followed for all communications of results related to BMA. This will allow for better interactions both inside and outside of this emerging scientific community.

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 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)0.146
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.139
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1460.139
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0190.015
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0050.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in EndocrinologySame topicHematological disorders and diagnosticsFrench-language works237,207