MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110534891 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2012-100538

Of 3700 children thought to have non-cardiac chest pain at initial paediatric cardiology clinic evaluation, none suffered cardiac death over a median of 4 years follow-up

2012· letter· en· W2110534891 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Thull‐Freedman

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChest painPediatricsMedical recordInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Saleeb SF, Li WY, Warren SZ, et al. Effectiveness of screening for life-threatening chest pain in children. Pediatrics 2011;128:e1062–8.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Chest pain (CP) in children is a common complaint, though cardiac causes are rare. The study by Saleeb et al aims to determine whether any children diagnosed initially with CP in the cardiology clinic of a children's hospital subsequently died as a result of a cardiac condition. Medical records were reviewed for all clinic patients >6 years of age with an International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) code for initial CP assessment who were seen at Children's Hospital Boston over 10 years. The authors suggest that usual coding practice in the clinic would be to use such codes for patients not considered to have cardiac disease. Demographic features, history and exam findings, tests performed and presumed diagnoses were abstracted. The vital status of all patients, and cause of death of deceased patients, were … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPediatrics%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1542%252Fpeds.2011-0408%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21987702%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=pediatrics&resid=128/5/e1062&atom=%2Febmed%2F17%2F6%2F190.atom

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Commentary

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207