MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009796969 · doi:10.1002/jmri.10421

MRI for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism

2003· review· en· W2009796969 on OpenAlex
Edwin J.R. van Beek, Jim M. Wild, Christian Fink, Alan R. Moody, Hans‐Ulrich Kauczor, Matthijs Oudkerk

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingThrombusAngiographyMagnetic resonance angiographyPulmonary angiographyPerfusion scanningMedical imagingPerfusionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is one of the most frequently encountered clinical emergencies. The diagnosis often involves multiple diagnostic tests, which need to be carried out rapidly to assist in the safe management of the patient. Recent strides in computed tomography (CT) have made big improvements in patient management and efficiency of diagnostic imaging. This review article describes the developments in magnetic resonance (MR) techniques for the diagnosis of acute PE. Techniques include MR angiography (MRA) and thrombus imaging for direct clot visualization, perfusion MR, and combined perfusion-ventilation MR. As will be demonstrated, some of these techniques are now entering the clinical arena, and it is anticipated that MR imaging (MRI) will have an increasing role in the initial diagnosis and follow-up of patients with acute PE.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.335 · 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