MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057318942 · doi:10.1097/crd.0b013e318197e950

The Utility of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Constrictive Pericardial Disease

2009· review· en· W2057318942 on OpenAlex

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

VenueCardiology in Review · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPericarditis and Cardiac Tamponade
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsConstrictive pericarditisMedicinePericardiumMagnetic resonance imagingCardiac magnetic resonanceRadiologyCardiologyCardiac magnetic resonance imagingRestrictive cardiomyopathyPericarditisInternal medicineCardiomyopathyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has a high diagnostic accuracy for constrictive pericarditis (CP). CMR allows for high-resolution imaging of the pericardium and associated structures in any imaging plane compared with that provided by other imaging modalities. We briefly discuss the specific quantitative and qualitative CMR sequences that can be tailored to answer the clinical questions pertaining to CP, where the diagnostic yield has been proven when characteristic CMR features of CP are present. Such features allow for differentiation of CP from restrictive cardiomyopathy, where the clinical differentiation between the 2 can often be challenging.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.295 · 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