MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391332372 · doi:10.5114/ko.2023.134018

Statement of the Polish Ophthalmological Society defining standards for the management of patients with exudative form of age-related macular degeneration

2023· article· en· W4391332372 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marta Misiuk‐Hojło, Alina Bakunowicz‐Łazarczyk, Dariusz Dobrowolski, Iwona Grabska‐Liberek, Jerzy Mackiewicz, Ewa Mrukwa–Kominek, Agnieszka Nowak, Weronika Pociej‐Marciak, Bożena Romanowska-Dixon, Marcin Stopa, Jacek P. Szaflik, J Kałuzný, Joanna Adamiec-Mroczek

Bibliographic record

VenueKlinika Oczna · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic health and occupational medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMacular degenerationStatement (logic)OphthalmologyExudative age-related macular degenerationOptometryDegeneration (medical)Law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

wytyczne PtO Wytyczne towarzystw naukowych (w tym wytyczne PTO) nie stanowią obowiązującego prawa i nie określają jedynego właściwego postępowania, a są jedynie wyrazem poglądów grupy ekspertów z danej dziedziny, które to poglądy odzwierciedlają aktualny stan wiedzy oparty na dostępnych wynikach badań naukowych.Wytyczne nie zwalniają od osobistej odpowiedzialności pracowników opieki zdrowotnej w zakresie podejmowania właściwych decyzji dotyczących poszczególnych pacjentów.Na każdej z osób praktykujących medycynę spoczywa osobista odpowiedzialność za stosowane metody lecznicze, których użycie powinno być oparte na gruntownej wiedzy i umiejętnościach praktycznych z zachowaniem niezbędnych warunków bezpieczeństwa własnego i pacjenta.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKlinika OcznaSame topicPublic health and occupational medicineFrench-language works237,207