MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161000996 · doi:10.1177/1708538115584727

Reply to letter to editor: Audible handheld Doppler ultrasound determines reliable and inexpensive exclusion of significant peripheral arterial disease

2015· letter· en· W2161000996 on OpenAlexaff
Afsáneh Alavi, R. Gary Sibbald, Dieter Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueVascular · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeripheralArterial diseaseDoppler ultrasoundPeripheral arterial occlusive diseaseDoppler effectCardiologyRadiologyInternal medicineVascular disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our study was designed as a screening test to offer anadditionaloptiontothebedsideportableDopplerAnkleBrachial Pressure Index (ABPI). ABPI is a difficult testto perform where an active ulcer is present over the areaof blood pressure cuff occlusion, when severe local painlimits the ability to perform the ABPI test or the vesselsare non-compressible (often in persons with diabetes)due to calcification with an ABPI level of greater than1.3. In our recent study, audible handheld Dopplerultrasound (AHDU) is a reliable simple bedside toolfor the screening of peripheral arterial disease with aspecificity of 97.5% and a negative predictive value of94.1%. The inter-rater reliability of the test performedbythephysicianandthenurseperformingAHDUintheclinic was very high with 87.5% agreement. Althoughthe sensitivity of the test is only 42.8%, it is a screeningtest that combined with physical findings to determinethe need for further vascular laboratory assessment.The study by Mustapha et al.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0160.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVascularSame topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207