MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132096275 · doi:10.1148/rg.271065027

Cardiovascular MR Imaging in Neonates and Infants with Congenital Heart Disease

2007· review· en· W2132096275 on OpenAlexaff
Christian J. Kellenberger, Shi‐Joon Yoo, Emanuela R. Valsangiacomo Büchel

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart diseaseMagnetic resonance imagingAngiocardiographyRadiologyCardiac catheterizationCatheterHemodynamicsCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has become an important alternative to echocardiography and angiocardiography in the evaluation of patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). It is increasingly being used in neonates and infants for the initial investigation of CHD or as follow-up after surgery or catheter-guided intervention. Specific indications for cardiovascular MR imaging in neonates and infants include investigation of the thoracic vasculature, quantification of the ventricular volumes, and evaluation of primary cardiac tumors. To obtain good-quality MR images in neonates and infants, it is essential to adjust the technical parameters of the pulse sequences to the small size and fast heart rates of the patients. Various MR imaging techniques are available that are effective in demonstrating the complex morphologic features of the cardiovascular system and that provide additional functional and hemodynamic information. The information provided by cardiovascular MR imaging is useful for treatment planning and, in many cases, may obviate potentially harmful cardiac catheterization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations119
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207