Canadian Association of Radiologists: Consensus Guidelines and Standards for Cardiac CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive coronary angiography remains the gold standard for imaging of the coronary arteries. Because of poor temporal and spatial resolution, noninvasive imaging of the heart using computed tomography (CT) had remained a challenge until the recent past. Since 1999, and the advent of 4-detector electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated CT, there have been rapid technical developments in CT technology and postprocessing tools, thus enabling an accurate noninvasive assessment of cardiac anatomy including the coronary arteries as well as cardiac function. Today, this relatively new technique increasingly is being requested and performed on a routine basis. Although guidelines and standards for the performance of cardiac CT (CCT) have been published by other societies outside of Canada [1e5], the Canadian Association of Radiologists recognizes that Canadian radiologists play a leading and pivotal role in the safe and proper implementation of CCT throughout the country, as well as in the training and continuing medical education of physicians performing and interpreting CCT studies. This comprehensive article reviews the current evidence for CCT to date and outlines the standards for the implementation of a CCT program. Based on the review of the current literature and on
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".