MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254870462 · doi:10.1586/14779072.2016.1134316

Evolving imaging techniques in diagnostic strategies of pulmonary embolism

2015· review· en· W2254870462 on OpenAlexaff
Helia Robert‐Ebadi, Grégoire Le Gal, Marc Righini

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismPulmonary angiographyOverdiagnosisRadiologyAngiographyMedical physicsIntensive care medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern non invasive diagnostic strategies for pulmonary embolism (PE) rely on the sequential use of clinical probability assessment, D-dimer measurement and thoracic imaging tests. Planar ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy was the cornerstone for more than two decades and has now been replaced by computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Diagnostic strategies using CTPA are very safe to rule out PE and have been well validated in large prospective management outcome studies. With the widespread use of CTPA, concerns regarding radiation and overdiagnosis of PE have paved the way for investigating new diagnostic modalities. V/Q single photon emission tomography has arisen as a highly accurate test and a potential alternative to CTPA. However, prospective management outcome studies are still lacking and are warranted before implementation in everyday clinical practice.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207