Bibliographic record
Abstract
In clinical medicine, we course correct constantly: reevaluating a diagnosis, revising a management plan, acknowledging that new data no longer support our original conclusions.It is part of the work.In academic medical publishing, these same practices must also apply.This month, POCUS Journal publishes its first Corrigendum: Normal Anatomy Mimicking an Abdominal Aortic Dissection, Kee et al. on page 50.There is a particular kind of humility in publishing a correction.Not because something went terribly wrong, but because something went right: the system worked and the community came together.The conclusions in a case report from last year were re-evaluated by Dr. Tanping Wong of our editorial board and the authors graciously accepted the feedback.The POCUS community has a lot of integrity and everyone who helped make this corrigendum possible represents our unwavering commitment to accurate image interpretation; a fascinating mimic of abdominal aortic dissection was attributed to artifact but later concluded to be due to the way that the crus of the diaphragm appears in today's high-resolution scans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".