MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103176309 · doi:10.1586/erc.12.168

Recent advances in pediatric echocardiography

2012· review· en· W2103176309 on OpenAlexaff
Tara Bharucha, Luc Mertens

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricular functionCardiologyVentricleDoppler echocardiographyInternal medicineDoppler imagingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Echocardiography is the fundamental tool in the management of children with congenital heart disease (CHD), and cross-sectional echocardiography is still the main technique used for diagnosis and therapeutic planning. Recent advances in pediatric echocardiography include 3D echocardiography and functional imaging. The recent development of specific pediatric probes allows imaging of pediatric hearts with high temporal and spatial resolution. Lesions are often anatomically complex, and 3D echocardiography allows increased appreciation of complex spatial relationships and can thereby be valuable in understanding functional anatomy and planning interventions. Assessment of pediatric myocardial function can be difficult, with highly variable ventricular morphology. Assessment of right ventricular function and function of the single ventricle are current challenges in CHD. The introduction of myocardial tissue Doppler velocities and deformation imaging (strain and strain-rate quantification) facilitates the quantification of myocardial function independent of underlying morphology. These techniques offer new insights into the mechanics of CHD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207