Controversies in Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The approach to the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is under constant revision with advances in technology, noninvasive approaches, and increasing awareness of the risks of ionizing radiation. Optimal approaches in some categories of patients are controversial. Data are insufficient for evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, this survey of investigators in the field was undertaken. Even among experts there were marked differences of opinion regarding the approach to the diagnosis of acute PE. Although CT pulmonary angiography was usually the imaging test of choice, the respondents were keenly aware of the dangers of ionizing radiation. In view of advances in scintigraphic diagnosis since the Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED) trial, ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) lung scans or perfusion scans alone and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) V/Q lung scans are often recommended. The choice depends on the patient's age, gender, and complexity of the findings on the plain chest radiograph.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.088 | 0.231 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".