MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411557174 · doi:10.1186/s12969-025-01117-z

Correction: Developing consensus outcome measures in juvenile systemic sclerosis: a global survey of pediatric rheumatologists and literature review

2025· erratum· en· W4411557174 on OpenAlexaff
Natalia Vasquez‐Canizares, Clare Pain, Francesco Zulian, Amra Adrovic, Simone Appenzeller, Edoardo Marrani, Emanuela Del Giudice, Antonella Petaccia, Francesca Tirelli, Gabriele Simonini, Mustafa Çakan, Marco Cattalini, Paulo Rogério Júlio, Kathryn S. Torok, Raju Khubchandani, Özgür Kasapçopur, Lauren Robinson, Eslam Al‐Abadi, Aybüke Gunalp, Meiping Lu, Hanna Lythgoe, Amanda Robinson, Betül Sözeri, Susan Shenoi, Emily Willis, Katherine Clarke, Rongjun Zheng, Biagio Castaldi, Valentina Leone, Valerio Maniscalco, Lusine Ambartsumyan, F.J. Rosser, Phuoc Duong, Aurelia Minuti, Suzanne C. Li, Marinka Twilt

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Rheumatology · 2025
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatologyJuvenileOutcome (game theory)Internal medicineFamily medicineMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following publication of the original article [1], we have been notified that the tagging of the first author’s last name was incorrect and should be Vasquez-Canizares instead of Canizares. Additionally, the authorship list should include the mention: “for the CARRA Juvenile Scleroderma Workgroup” and the following sentence be added to the Acknowledgments section: “The authors wish to acknowledge CARRA and the ongoing Arthritis Foundation financial support of CARRA.” The original article has been corrected.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.235
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.235
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.016

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSystematic review
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric RheumatologySame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207