MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068348205 · doi:10.1016/j.carj.2013.05.003

Vulnerable Atherosclerotic Carotid Plaque Evaluation by Ultrasound, Computed Tomography Angiography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Overview

2013· review· en· W2068348205 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

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingAsymptomaticRadiologyCarotid endarterectomyUltrasoundStenosisComputed tomography angiographyMagnetic resonance angiographyVulnerable plaqueElastographyComputed tomographyCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ischemic syndromes associated with carotid atherosclerotic disease are often related to plaque rupture. The benefit of endarterectomy for high-grade carotid stenosis in symptomatic patients has been established. However, in asymptomatic patients, the benefit of endarterectomy remains equivocal. Current research seeks to risk stratify asymptomatic patients by characterizing vulnerable, rupture-prone atherosclerotic plaques. Plaque composition, biology, and biomechanics are studied by noninvasive imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasound, and ultrasound elastography. These techniques are at a developmental stage and have yet to be used in clinical practice. This review will describe noninvasive techniques in ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography imaging modalities used to characterize atherosclerotic plaque, and will discuss their potential clinical applications, benefits, and drawbacks.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.263 · 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