MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085016789 · doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2012.04.010

Effect of image quality on diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive fractional flow reserve: Results from the prospective multicenter international DISCOVER-FLOW study

2012· article· en· W2085016789 on OpenAlexaff
James K. Min, Bon‐Kwon Koo, Andrejs Ērglis, Joon‐Hyung Doh, David Daniels, Sanda Jēgere, Hyo‐Soo Kim, Allison Dunning, Tony DeFrance, Jonathan Leipsic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of cardiovascular computed tomography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFractional flow reserveStenosisRadiologyCalcificationCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseNuclear medicineInternal medicineCoronary angiographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Diagnostic accuracy substudy of noninvasive fractional flow reserve by image quality; a clinical test-performance question, not a study of research practice.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: low

The title indicates a clinical diagnostic-accuracy study, but the abstract is missing.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: medium

Clinical study of CT image quality versus diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive FFR; polysemy of quality.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations102
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of cardiovascular computed tomographySame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207