CUAJ • March-April 2014 • Volume 8, Issues 3-4 © 2014 Canadian Urological Association commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While prescribing medication as approved by Health Canada or the US Food and Drug Administration may be the ideal, the reality is that those of us who treat overactive bladder (OAB) in children do not have that luxury. For us, the off-label use of antimuscarinics is common practice. However, clinicians need to feel confi-dent when making such recommendations. Additionally, parents need to be informed when the medications pre-scribed for their children are being used off-label; they need to understand why we feel their use is justified and they need to decide if they are comfortable with the recommendation. Given the small market, the pursuit of formal assessment and approval for use of these medications in the pediatric population is unlikely to be undertaken by the pharmaceuti-cal companies. Therefore, clinicians treating pediatric OAB rely on the clinical trials and experience of our avant-garde colleagues to determine the safety, tolerability and clinical
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".