MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113415967 · doi:10.1007/s00125-013-2898-9

Common carotid intima-media thickness does not add to Framingham risk score in individuals with diabetes mellitus: the USE-IMT initiative

2013· review· en· W2113415967 on OpenAlexaff
Hester M. den Ruijter, Sanne A. E. Peters, K. Groenewegen, Todd J. Anderson, Annie Britton, Joost Dekker, Gunnar Engström, Marinus J.C. Eijkemans, Gregory W. Evans, Jacqueline de Graaf, Diederick E. Grobbee, Bo Hedblad, Albert Hofman, Suzanne Holewijn, A. Ikeda, Maryam Kavousi, Kazuo Kitagawa, Akihiko Kitamura, Hendrik Koffijberg, M. Arfan Ikram, Eva Lonn, Matthias Lorenz, Ellisiv B. Mathiesen, Giel Nijpels, Shuhei Okazaki, Daniel H. O’Leary, Joseph F. Polak, Jackie F. Price, C. Robertson, Christopher M. Rembold, Maria Rosvall, Tatjana Rundek, Jukka T. Salonen, Matthias Sitzer, Coen D.A. Stehouwer, Jacqueline C.M. Witteman, Karel G.M. Moons, Michiel L. Bots

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetologia · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research InstituteLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthZonMwBritish Heart FoundationMedpaceItä-Suomen YliopistoGlaxoSmithKlineMedical Research CouncilSanofiF. Hoffmann-La RocheAstraZeneca
KeywordsFramingham Risk ScoreMedicineDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineStroke (engine)Intima-media thicknessMyocardial infarctionPopulationFramingham Heart StudyCardiologyDiseaseEndocrinologyCarotid arteries

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations76
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueDiabetologiaSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207