Patients with POTS fear that data on abnormal haemodynamic physiology have been ignored
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Journal Article Patients with POTS fear that data on abnormal haemodynamic physiology have been ignored Get access Kate M Bourne, Kate M Bourne Department of Cardiac Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, CanadaLibin Cardiovascular Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8355-0002 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Vidya Raj, Vidya Raj Libin Cardiovascular Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, CanadaDepartment of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Robert S Sheldon, Robert S Sheldon Department of Cardiac Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, CanadaLibin Cardiovascular Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0742-8379 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Satish R Raj Satish R Raj Department of Cardiac Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, CanadaLibin Cardiovascular Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, CanadaAutonomic Dysfunction Center, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA Correspondence to: Satish R. Raj, MD, MSCI HRIC GAC70, University of Calgary 3280 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada E-mail: Satish.raj@ucalgary.ca https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5890-3785 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Brain, Volume 145, Issue 11, November 2022, Pages e109–e110, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awac347 Published: 24 September 2022 Article history Received: 25 July 2022 Accepted: 12 September 2022 Published: 24 September 2022 Corrected and typeset: 02 November 2022
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".