Bibliographic record
Abstract
I wanted to take a moment to highlight the contribution of case reports to the pathology field.These "n of one" reports frequently focus on unusual presentation of common disease or rare entities, as in this issue's case of plexiform fibromyxoma presenting in the distal small bowel.Case reports serve as reminder for practicing pathologists to be mindful of such entities but also often provide a port of entry to academic publication for trainees or novice practitioners.Their inclusion, along with more traditional papers, provide an important sharing of experience and expertise with our Canadian colleagues.Along the same vein, I want to encourage the submission of "mini reviews" that provide a succinct and practical discourse on a topic of interest to our pathology community.These offer an opportunity to introduce new and cutting-edge topics, unlike the more deeply researched full papers, on pathology, molecular diagnostics, resident training, and continued education.They can also highlight issues that are unique to the Canadian pathology community.Mini reviews are ideal for trainees, to craft and to digest, as part of their education and offer more seasoned pathologists easy to process information from specialties outside of our daily practice.
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 | 0.143 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".