Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the morbidity and mortality associated with either untreated disease or inappropriate anticoagulant therapy, accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is essential. Pulmonary angiography, the current gold standard test for diagnosing pulmonary embolus, is both invasive and costly; therefore, noninvasive diagnostic strategies have been developed. Noninvasive tests often have to be combined to either raise the posttest probability of disease to a level justifying treatment or lower it to a level at which withholding treatment is warranted. Diagnostic algorithms involving clinical assessment; venous ultrasonography; D-dimer testing; ventilation-perfusion lung scanning; and, more recently, computed tomography have been validated in management trials of patients with a suspected pulmonary embolism. The optimal strategy at individual institutions is dependent on local availability, expertise, and cost. Magnetic resonance imaging and combined computed tomographic pulmonary angiography and venography possess the potential to be used as stand-alone tests for pulmonary embolism but require further evaluation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".