ECG - Exame de rastreio em adultos assintomáticos
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
Objective: To perform a critical analysis of review papers and guidelines of cardiology and preventive medicine in order to assess the efficacy of the resting electrocardiogram (ECG) as a screening tool fort heart disease in asymptomatic adults in the ambulatory setting. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed (1985-2003) was performed. Paper evaluated fulfilled the following criteria: (1) Papers referring exclusively to subjects aged 19 or more and apparently healthy; (2) papers evaluating solely the efficacy of the resting 12 derivation ECG as a screening tool for heart disease; papers in English. Levels of evidence were attributed according to the scale of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Guidelines by leading authorities were also searched online. Conclusions: All papers reviewed indicate that the resting ECG has neither sensitivity nor specificity enough to serve as a screening tool for cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy adults; its use as such should thus be abandoned, reducing health care costs. Steps should be taken to reduce risk factors for ischaemic disease, the only intervention shown to reduce both morbidity and mortality in this population. This review, however, was based in non-randomised studies, having thus a low scientific evidence level. The lack of efficacy of the resting ECG as a routine screening tool in apparently healthy adults should be confirmed by controlled randomised studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.001 |
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