Perspectives on the future of dysmorphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of clinical genetics and genomics continues to evolve. In the past few decades, milestones like the initial sequencing of the human genome, dramatic changes in sequencing technologies, and the introduction of artificial intelligence, have upended the field and offered fascinating new insights. Though difficult to predict the precise paths the field will follow, rapid change may continue to be inevitable. Within genetics, the practice of dysmorphology, as defined by pioneering geneticist David W. Smith in the 1960s as "the study of, or general subject of abnormal development of tissue form" has also been affected by technological advances as well as more general trends in biomedicine. To address possibilities, potential, and perils regarding the future of dysmorphology, a group of clinical geneticists, representing different career stages, areas of focus, and geographic regions, have contributed to this piece by providing insights about how the practice of dysmorphology will develop over the next several decades.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".