MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153282617 · doi:10.1136/bmj.38849.517257.de

Cardiovascular risk estimation: important but may be inaccurate

2006· letter· en· W2153282617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vishnu Madhok, Tom Fahey

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEstimationData scienceMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manuel and colleagues applied the recommendations from six national guidelines on statin treatment to the same Canadian population and measured each guideline's impact in terms of number of people recommended for treatment, potential number of deaths from coronary heart disease avoided, and the number needed to treat to avoid one death.1 They show that markedly different numbers of people are recommended for treatment when different guidelines are followed. Deciding whether to prescribe statins for a patient for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease would seem to be a relatively straightforward issue in the broader context of decision making in primary care. …

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.257
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.257
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0120.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207