MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995192418 · doi:10.1097/hco.0b013e328323d86f

The gold standard for noninvasive imaging in congenital heart disease: echocardiography

2009· review· en· W1995192418 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Mertens, Mark K. Friedberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGold standard (test)Heart diseaseDoppler echocardiographyStandardizationRadiologyCardiologyInternal medicineDiastole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Echocardiography in pediatric and congenital heart disease is a key diagnostic technique in patients with congenital heart disease. Due to new technological developments, it has become a rapidly evolving field. RECENT FINDINGS: In this review, we focus on recent developments in standardization and validation of standard techniques in pediatric and congenital echocardiography. This is mainly related to standardization of image acquisition and normalization of measurements for body size. The rest of the review is focused on the application of three-dimensional echocardiography, tissue Doppler imaging and Speqle tracking techniques to pediatric heart disease. SUMMARY: New developments in standardization of echocardiography, the introduction of three-dimensional echocardiography and new functional techniques such as tissue Doppler and Speqle tracking strengthen the position of pediatric echocardiography as the most important diagnostic tool for patients with congenital heart disease.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations54
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207