Notice of Retraction: Omission of Author in “Malakoplakia Outside the Urinary Tract” (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(2):297–300)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor.—We recently published the following review article in the Archives: Yousef GM, Naghibi B. Malakoplakia outside the urinary tract. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007; 131(2):297–300. I realize that the name of Mowafak M. Hamodat, MB, ChB, MSc, FRCPC, was inadvertently omitted from the author list.I am, therefore, writing to notify you of this oversight on my part, and I ask you to recognize Dr Hamodat as a coauthor.To clarify, the roles of the authors were as follows: Dr G. M. Yousef, writing and designing the review article; Dr B. Naghibi, sharing in the design of the article; and Dr M. M. Hamodat, contributing information about a case report of malakoplakia of the neck, which was mentioned in the article.The corrected citation is as follows: Yousef GM, Naghibi B, Hamodat M. M. Malakoplakia outside the urinary tract. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007; 131(2):297–300.Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | medium |
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.014 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".