Bibliographic record
Abstract
We appreciate the insightful comments from Dr. Bortolloti and her colleagues based on their long experience with a unique and interesting cohort of children and young adults with chronic HBV infection.1 Their observations, published at the time of the Single Topic Conference and well after planning for the conference was concluded,2 emphasize the complexity of pediatric chronic hepatitis B. The experience described from the University of Padova is exactly the type of arduous follow-up required to make appropriate informed decisions about the management of children with chronic HBV infection. The majority of children in this Italian cohort apparently developed infection as the result of intrafamilial spread of HBV; their disease was associated with biochemical and histological abnormalities and resolution of viral replication in most infected persons. This is quite distinct from the course of perinatally acquired HBV, more common in other parts of the world, where viral infection results in little, if any, liver disease during childhood, despite the presence of high levels of HBV in blood. We applaud the work done by Dr. Bortolloti and her colleagues and look forward to similar long-term studies of other cohorts of children with chronic HBV infection from around the world. Clearly, such studies will be needed to make sound recommendations regarding treatment decisions and liver cancer surveillance in children with chronic HBV infection. Funding of international networks for these much needed long-term follow-up and prospective cross-sectional surveys of chronic HBV infection in children would be extremely useful. Benjamin L. Shneider M.D.*, Eve A. Roberts M.D. , Regino P. González-Peralta M.D. , * Visiting Professor of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, Professor of Pediatrics University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Associate Professor of Pediatrics University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
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 | 0.004 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.035 |
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".