MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049403274 · doi:10.1186/1532-429x-12-s1-o91

Evaluation of normal atrial contribution to left ventricular filling

2010· article· en· W2049403274 on OpenAlexaff
Tariq Alhogbani, Oliver Strohm, Friedrich Matthias

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAngiologyCardiologyInternal medicineStroke volumeCardiac cycleHeart failureEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods Normal subjects (No history of cardiovascular disease and had normal Echocardiography) underwent steady-state free precession CMR with retrospective ECG gating covering the whole cardiac cycle by 25 phases. The percentage of the left atrial contraction contribution in left ventricular filling was calculated as the difference between the LVEDV (defined as the first image after the R wave, TD = 0 ms) and the left ventricular volume just before the atrial contraction divided by the LV stroke volume. All volumes were assessed in 6 long axis slices for every study. All studies were reviewed by two readers where intraobserver and interobserver variability were checked.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207