Retraction: Ferrari Aggradi, CR, Falcier, E, Lizio, A, et al. Assessment of respiratory function and need for non‐invasive ventilation in a cohort of patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 followed at one single expert centre. <i>The Clinical Respiratory Journal</i>. 2022; 1‐ 13. (https://doi.org/10.1111/crj.13516)
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The above article, published online on 27 June 2022 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editors in Chief, Professor Paul Jones and Professor Yuanlin Song and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to an error with the publisher and author which caused a duplicate of the article to be published on 27 June 2022. The correct version of the article is to be found at: Carola R. Ferrari Aggradi, Elisa Falcier, Andrea Lizio, Alice Pirola, Jacopo Casiraghi, Alice Zanolini, Elena Carraro, Luca Mauro, Fabrizio Rao, Elisabetta Roma, Antonino Iannello, Elisa De Mattia, Andrea Barp, Sara Lupone, Valentina Gatti, Cristina Italiano, Valeria A. Sansone, "Assessment of Respiratory Function and Need for Noninvasive Ventilation in a Cohort of Patients with Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1 Followed at One Single Expert Center", Canadian Respiratory Journal, vol. 2022, Article ID 2321909, 11 pages, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2321909.
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 | Research integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | Research integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.006 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
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".