Lindsay’s nails in a patient followed up for antiphospholipid syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AMA Jaworek A, Jagiełło W, Kaleta K, Dziedzic R, Kozłowska A, Wojas-Pelc A. Lindsay's nails in a patient followed up for antiphospholipid syndrome. Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny. 2024;111(1):66-68. doi:10.5114/dr.2024.140819. APA Jaworek, A., Jagiełło, W., Kaleta, K., Dziedzic, R., Kozłowska, A., & Wojas-Pelc, A. (2024). Lindsay's nails in a patient followed up for antiphospholipid syndrome. Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny, 111(1), 66-68. https://doi.org/10.5114/dr.2024.140819 Chicago Jaworek, Andrzej K., Wojciech Jagiełło, Konrad Kaleta, Radosław Dziedzic, Arletta Kozłowska, and Anna Wojas-Pelc. 2024. "Lindsay's nails in a patient followed up for antiphospholipid syndrome". Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny 111 (1): 66-68. doi:10.5114/dr.2024.140819. Harvard Jaworek, A., Jagiełło, W., Kaleta, K., Dziedzic, R., Kozłowska, A., and Wojas-Pelc, A. (2024). Lindsay's nails in a patient followed up for antiphospholipid syndrome. Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny, 111(1), pp.66-68. https://doi.org/10.5114/dr.2024.140819 MLA Jaworek, Andrzej K. et al. "Lindsay's nails in a patient followed up for antiphospholipid syndrome." Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny, vol. 111, no. 1, 2024, pp. 66-68. doi:10.5114/dr.2024.140819. Vancouver Jaworek A, Jagiełło W, Kaleta K, Dziedzic R, Kozłowska A, Wojas-Pelc A. Lindsay's nails in a patient followed up for antiphospholipid syndrome. Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny. 2024;111(1):66-68. doi:10.5114/dr.2024.140819.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".