MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003700282 · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7325.1319

Chest pain in people with normal coronary anatomy

2001· editorial· en· W2003700282 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Nijher, John Weinman, C. Bass

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2001
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronary anatomyChest painMedicineComputer scienceCardiologyCoronary angiographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronary angiography is often necessary for patients with chest pain, but 20% to 30% of examinations show normal anatomy.1 The use of angiography itself can contribute to symptoms in these patients, and non-organic factors are often overlooked. Providing a diagnosis may be less important than addressing a patient's concerns and fears. Potentially irrevocable changes in social circumstances may occur while a patient is on a long waiting list. The mean waiting time from the general practitioner's referral to angiography was 261 days in the United Kingdom in 1994 and about 60 days in Canada in 1993. 2 3 These delays provide ample time for adverse changes in lifestyle, work patterns or even losing a job, restriction in social and leisure activity, and disruption of family life. Such changes are directly related to time on the waiting list for coronary bypass …

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.384 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations42
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207