Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is common and considered to be predominantly of vascular origin. AIM: To evaluate the link between ED and coronary artery disease (CAD) and provide a consensus report regarding evaluation and management. METHODS: A committee of eight experts from six countries was convened to review the worldwide literature concerning ED and CAD and provide a guideline for management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Expert opinion was based on grading the evidence-based medical literature, widespread internal committee discussion, public presentation, and debate. RESULTS: ED and CAD frequently coexist. Between 50-70% of men with CAD have ED. ED can arise before CAD is symptomatic with a time window of 3-5 years. ED and CAD share the same risk factors, and endothelial dysfunction is the common denominator. Treating ED in cardiac patients is safe, provided that their risks are properly evaluated. CONCLUSION: ED is a marker for silent CAD that needs to be excluded. Men with CAD frequently have ED that can be treated safely following guidelines.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it