MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173497265 · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.11.008

Relation Between Family History of Premature Coronary Artery Disease and the Risk of Death in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

2015· article· en· W2173497265 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Abdi-Ali, Abdel Aziz Shaheen, Danielle A. Southern, Mei Zhang, Merril L. Knudtson, James A. White, Michelle M. Graham, Mathew T. James, Stephen B. Wilton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Cardiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseMyocardial infarctionHazard ratioInternal medicineProportional hazards modelCardiologyFamily historyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Clinical epidemiology of family history and mortality in coronary artery disease; abstract absent but the title is unambiguous.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

It studies family history and mortality risk in coronary artery disease.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Family history and CAD mortality is clinical epidemiology despite empty abstract.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of CardiologySame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207