CTA in the evaluation of acute chest pain syndromes. Should more widespread use be advocated?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With the advent of CT more than 3 decades ago, we have seen rapid evolution of this technology, so that we are now able to noninvasively accurately image the coronary arterial tree. This has opened up a debate as to the role of this imaging modality in our day-to-day evaluation of acute coronary syndromes. Much recent literature has focused on whether in the acute setting this modality should be incorporated into current evaluation and treatment guidelines. AREAS COVERED: A comprehensive review of a literature illustrating the utility of CTA in the acute care setting is presented. The paper goes on to address the benefits and challenges of implementation of CTA in the evaluation of acute chest pain syndromes. Alternative guidelines and insights on future directions are presented. EXPERT OPINION: In this current era where CAD, and more specifically acute chest pain syndromes, remains as a large part of ED visits and also healthcare costs, CTA will play an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of individuals. It remains only a matter of time when this will be implemented in our guidelines, in light of the recent literature and ever improving CTA protocols.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".