MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phenotyping airway disease with optical coherence tomography

2010· review· en· W1506201700 on OpenAlexaff
Harvey O. Coxson, Peter R. Eastwood, Jonathan Williamson, Don D. Sin

Bibliographic record

VenueRespirology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineOptical coherence tomographyAirwayTomographyRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airway diseases are a major concern around the world. However, the pace of new drug and biomarker discovery has lagged behind those of other common disorders such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. One major barrier in airway research has been the inability to accurately visualize large or small airway remodelling or dysplastic/neoplastic (either pre or early cancerous) changes using non- or minimally invasive instruments. The advent of optical coherence tomography (OCT) has the potential to revolutionize airway research and management by allowing investigators and clinicians to visualize the airway with resolution approaching histology and without exposing patients to harmful effects of ionizing radiation. Thus, with the aid of OCT, we may be able to accurately determine and quantify the extent of airway remodelling in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, detect early pre-cancerous lesions in smokers for chemoprevention, study the upper airway anatomy of patients with obstructive sleep apnea in real time while they are asleep and facilitate optimal selection of stents for those with tracheal obstruction. In this paper, we review the current state of knowledge of OCT and its possible application in airway diseases.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespirologySame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207