MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070564426 · doi:10.2174/157340309788166679

New Perspectives of Infections in Cardiovascular Disease

2009· article· en· W2070564426 on OpenAlexaff
I. W. Fong

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Cardiology Reviews · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndocardiumCoronary artery diseaseEndocarditisDiseaseEtiologyIntensive care medicinePopulationCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infections have been recognized as significant causes of cardiac diseases for many decades. Various microorganisms have been implicated in the etiology of these diseases involving all classes of microbial agents. All components of the heart structure can be affected by infectious agents, i.e. pericardium, myocardium, endocardium, valves, autonomic nervous system, and some evidence of coronary arteries. A new breed of infections have evolved over the past three decades involving cardiac implants and this group of cardiac infectious complications will likely continue to increase in the future, as more mechanical devices are implanted in the growing ageing population. This article will review the progress made in the past decade on understanding the pathobiology of these infectious complications of the heart, through advances in genomics and proteomics, as well as potential novel approach for therapy.An up-to-date, state-of-the-art review and controversies will be outlined for the following conditions: (i) perimyocarditis; (ii) infective endocarditis; (iii) cardiac device infections; (iv) coronary artery disease and potential role of infections.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Cardiology ReviewsSame topicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207