Building a dedicated pediatric pulmonary hypertension program: A consensus statement from the pediatric pulmonary hypertension network
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a severe, life-threatening disease associated with diverse cardiac, pulmonary, and systemic disorders, which generally requires expertise from multiple disciplines for management. Unfortunately, expert centers are limited, often due to inadequate resources or unfamiliarity with needed components for success. The Pediatric Pulmonary Hypertension Network (PPHNet) includes expert centers in North America specifically dedicated to advancing the field of pediatric PH through research and excellent clinical care. PPHNet member sites were queried for valuable program components and these findings were discussed for consensus. Here we provide a collective overview of key elements of an optimal pediatric PH program: team composition, access to services, and commitment to education. It is our intention that this document will assist newer and/or smaller programs identify avenues and resources for growth and provide avenues for collaboration.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it