MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W161020771

Validation of a new ultrasound method for the measurement of carotid artery intima medial thickness and plaque dimensions.

2004· article· en· W161020771 on OpenAlexaff
G.B. John Mancini, David H. Abbott, Craig Kamimura, Eunice Yeoh

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Carotid ultrasound is an accepted method for the detection of subclinical atherosclerosis. Valid methods that allow quantitation of carotid atheroma burden may be useful for stratifying risk. OBJECTIVE: To validate the results of intima medial thickness (IMT) and plaque measurements using a newly created software algorithm by comparing them with those obtained using a previously validated method. METHODS: Carotid ultrasound videotapes (n=24) were analyzed by experienced observers using a validated method and a new method. Ultrasound parameters were compared by measuring the difference +/- SD to yield indexes of accuracy and precision. Performance was also assessed using correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: Average IMT (n=24), plaque area (n=46), and several indexes that integrate IMT and plaque measurements were all found to be comparable with measurements obtained using the previously validated method. For example, the plaque area showed excellent accuracy and precision (-0.17+/-2.0 mm2, P=0.56), excellent correlation (r=0.98, standard error of the estimate = 2.01 mm2, P<0.001) and no evidence of bias using Bland-Altman analyses (Spearman's rho = 0.04, P=0.82). CONCLUSIONS: A new algorithm for the quantitation of carotid atheroma burden yields results that are comparable with those of a previously validated and widely used method. Availability of valid tools for measuring carotid ultrasound should facilitate the incorporation of this procedure into clinical risk stratification paradigms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207