MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122111445 · doi:10.1136/jcp.2004.024174

Coronary artery stents: identification and evaluation

2005· review· en· W2122111445 on OpenAlex
Jagdish Butany, Khenan Carmichael, Shaun W. Leong, Michael J. Collins

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestenosisMedicineStentInterventional cardiologyIdentification (biology)Coronary angiographyCoronary restenosisRadiologyCardiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First introduced in the 1980s, the coronary stent has been used to reduce the rate of arterial restenosis. Coronary stent implantation is currently a common procedure performed by interventional cardiologists, and the market for development and design is constantly expanding and evolving. This article was designed to assist pathologists in the accurate identification of coronary stents that are currently available, in addition to some that are no longer being implanted. The stents reviewed here were chosen based on frequency of use and/or occurrence in the literature. Some of the newer models have yet to undergo extensive clinical testing. The summaries accompanying each stent include concise physical descriptions and documented complications, intended to serve as a guide for the investigating pathologist.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.258 · 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