MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386985349 · doi:10.56083/rcv3n9-093

VAGINOSE CITOLÍTICA: ENTIDADE CLÍNICA DESCONHECIDA?

2023· article· pt· W4386985349 on OpenAlexaff
Evandro Russo

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Contemporânea · 2023
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mencionada pela primeira vez na literatura científica no início da década de 1990, a Vaginose Citolítica reuniu poucas evidências científicas ou clínicas novas até o momento sendo considerada por alguns autores uma condição clínica controversa. Objetivo: realizar uma revisão da literatura para investigar a trajetória da Vaginose Citolítica, desde o diagnóstico até as formas de tratamento, bem como seu lugar como uma doença ginecológica. Conclusão: Vaginose Citolítica é uma entidade presente entre nós ginecologistas carecendo apenas de mais estudos com relação aos parâmetros diagnósticos e, especialmente com relação ao tratamento que permanece totalmente empírico e caótico.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.011

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista ContemporâneaSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207