Academic careers in global pulmonary and critical care medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T he burden of respiratory and critical illness is high worldwide, yet specialist care is underrepresented in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) [1].For many areas of medicine, the past decade has witnessed tremendous growth in global health opportunities for trainees; however, these opportunities tend to be restricted to individual institutions and geographic regions and academic global pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) remains a relatively novel concept [2].Consequently, PCCM fellows and junior faculty at institutions with limited global health mentorship have little guidance in building successful global health careers.This paper highlights various pathways to develop a successful academic career in PCCM and global health.Ranging from traditional academic medicine to private practice, professional societies to transnational health policy bodies, the challenges of balancing international work with clinical and other professional demands are discussed in Table 1 provides examples of and links to specific opportunities.A more comprehensive discussion with personal anecdotes and advice from current global PCCM faculty can be found separately (publication pending, Journal of Global Health).
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.019 |
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".