MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2017896818 · doi:10.1117/12.2042810

Distribution of guidance models for cardiac resynchronization therapy in the setting of multi-center clinical trials

2014· article· en· W2017896818 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Rajchl, Kamyar Abhari, John Stirrat, Eranga Ukwatta, Diego Cantor, Feng P. Li, Terry M. Peters, James A. White

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCardiac resynchronization therapyVisualizationInterface (matter)Range (aeronautics)Data centerCenter (category theory)Medical physicsData miningMedicineHeart failureComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-center trials provide the unique ability to investigate novel techniques across a range of geographical sites with sufficient statistical power, the inclusion of multiple operators determining feasibility under a wider array of clinical environments and work-flows. For this purpose, we introduce a new means of distributing pre-procedural cardiac models for image-guided interventions across a large scale multi-center trial. In this method, a single core facility is responsible for image processing, employing a novel web-based interface for model visualization and distribution. The requirements for such an interface, being WebGL-based, are minimal and well within the realms of accessibility for participating centers. We then demonstrate the accuracy of our approach using a single-center pacemaker lead implantation trial with generic planning models.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→