MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145807722 · doi:10.1586/14779072.2014.877344

The prominent role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in coronary artery disease

2014· review· en· W2145807722 on OpenAlexaff
John Palios, Dimos Karangelis, Apostolos Roubelakis, Stamatios Lerakis

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineCardiac magnetic resonance imagingCardiac magnetic resonanceDiseaseRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in coronary artery disease is prominent. CMR provides functional and structural heart disease assessment with high accuracy. It allows accurate cardiac volume and flow quantification and wall motion analysis both at rest and at stress. CMR myocardial perfusion studies detect myocardial ischemia and provide insights into the morphology of the myocardial tissue. CMR imaging noninvasively differentiates causes of myocardial injury such as ischemia or inflammation; stages of myocardial injury, such as acute or chronic; grade of myocardial damage, such as reversible or irreversible; myocardial fibrosis or scar. There is an emerging role of CMR in patients with acute chest presentation since it can demonstrate causes of chest pain other than coronary artery disease such as myocarditis, pericarditis, aortic dissection and pulmonary embolism. CMR is noninvasive and radiation-free. It's combined approach of functional and structural cardiac assessment makes it unique compared with other imaging modalities.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207