MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141655001 · doi:10.1309/b14f0bxk93yq9qv5

Reproducibility of Pretest Assessment in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism

2008· article· en· W2141655001 on OpenAlexaff
Lori‐Ann Linkins

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismPre- and post-test probabilityReproducibilityClinical PracticeAnticoagulant therapyClinical judgmentChest painIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of mortality in North America. Prompt recognition and treatment of PE with anticoagulant therapy reduces the risk of mortality from 30% to 1.5%. Unfortunately, timely diagnosis of PE can be difficult because the clinical features of PE, such as chest pain and rapid heart rate, are not unique to PE. Although clinical assessment alone cannot confirm or exclude PE, it can be used to stratify patients according to their likelihood of having PE before diagnostic tests are performed (ie, pretest probability). This paper will review the role of clinical assessment in the diagnosis of PE, provide an overview of validated clinical prediction rules for PE, and discuss the reproducibility of clinical pretest probability assessment in suspected PE.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.277
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.277
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory MedicineSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207