Pre- and Postoperative Evaluation of Congenital Heart Disease in Children and Adults with 64-Section CT
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although echocardiography is the imaging method of choice for diagnostic, preoperative, and postoperative evaluation of congenital heart disease, computed tomography (CT) is a helpful complementary imaging modality, particularly for postoperative evaluation. A thorough understanding of the normal anatomy and the morphologic features of congenital heart diseases is a prerequisite for choosing the optimal CT technique and achieving an accurate diagnosis. Furthermore, a close collaboration with a cardiologist with special training and expertise in congenital heart diseases is required. A sequential segmental approach should be used in evaluating morphologic features, especially during the review of CT images obtained in patients with rare congenital cardiac defects and in postoperative adult patients. To accurately document and interpret the altered flow conditions in patients with congenital heart disease, knowledge of the wide spectrum of surgical procedures and familiarity with the dedicated protocols for performing 64-section CT are needed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it