MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213157853

Medical Scope:1型糖尿病患者における移行期医療の現状

2019· article· ja· W3213157853 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePharma Medica · 2019
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Technology and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Computer scienceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

日本は1 型糖尿病の発症率が低いために治療に慣れている小児科医は少ない。一方,成人領域でも大部分の糖尿病患者は2 型糖尿病であるため1 型糖尿病患者の治療に十分な時間を割くことができない現状がある。思春期患者は血糖コントロールが悪化することも多く,特有の心理的な問題に対応するのは小児科医のほうが合うことも多い。欧米では小児科と内科とを併診する期間を設けてトランジションすることを提唱している。小児科医と糖尿病内科医とが患者会や糖尿病キャンプなどで普段から“顔のみえる連携”を築き,スムーズに小児科から内科へ移行できる関係を作っておくことが重要である。

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.012

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.250 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharma MedicaSame topicMilitary Technology and StrategiesFrench-language works237,207