MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090287477 · doi:10.3949/ccjm.80a.12112

Biomarkers in the emergency workup of chest pain: Uses, limitations, and future

2013· review· en· W2090287477 on OpenAlexaff
Wassim Mosleh, Husam Abdel‐Qadir, Michael E. Farkouh

Bibliographic record

VenueCleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChest painAcute coronary syndromePhysical examinationElectrocardiographyEmergency departmentIntensive care medicineMedical historyInternal medicineEmergency medicineCardiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When patients present with chest pain, their levels of cardiac biomarkers are only one piece of the clinical picture, albeit an important one. Together with the history, physical examination, and electrocardiography (ECG), these levels help estimate the probability that the patient is experiencing an acute coronary syndrome and will have an adverse clinical outcome.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCleveland Clinic Journal of MedicineSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207