MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biochemical and bioimaging markers for risk assessment and diagnosis in major cardiovascular diseases: a road to integration of complementary diagnostic tools

2007· review· en· W2004431776 on OpenAlexaff
S Marcovina, Filippo Crea, J. Davignon, J C Kaski, Wolfgang Köenig, Ulf Landmesser, Pietro Pieri, Jeanette Schulz‐Menger, L. J. Shaw, Jan Sobesky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Internal Medicine · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRisk assessmentIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report from the first International Course on Integrated Biomarkers, Biochemical and Bioimaging Endpoints in Cardiovascular Diagnosis, Prevention, Therapy and Drug Development provides the basis for optimizing diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic information in four areas of cardiovascular medicine: primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure and stroke. Risk stratification and treatment strategies can be refined and enhanced through integration of bioimaging and biochemical markers to characterize sub-clinical and clinical atherosclerosis. For the integrative approach to be useful, each of the biomarkers must be validated and cost-effective. Clinical decision is the primary level of integration and is based on clinical evaluation and the use of a combination of bioimaging and biochemical markers. The decision to initiate preventive or therapeutic intervention must take into account the factors affecting the levels of expression of the biomarker and the potential input the biomarker has on metabolic processes or modulation of other biomarkers. The optimal approach to intervention must take into consideration the risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness ratios.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations46
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Internal MedicineSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207