Implementation and Performance of Automated Software for Computing Right-to-Left Ventricular Diameter Ratio From Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to prospectively test the performance and potential for clinical integration of software that automatically calculates the right-to-left ventricular (RV/LV) diameter ratio from computed tomography pulmonary angiography images. METHODS: Using 115 computed tomography pulmonary angiography images that were positive for acute pulmonary embolism, we prospectively evaluated RV/LV ratio measurements that were obtained as follows: (1) completely manual measurement (reference standard), (2) completely automated measurement using the software, and (3 and 4) using a customized software interface that allowed 2 independent radiologists to manually adjust the automatically positioned calipers. RESULTS: Automated measurements underestimated (P < 0.001) the reference standard (1.09 [0.25] vs1.03 [0.35]). With manual correction of the automatically positioned calipers, the mean ratio became closer to the reference standard (1.06 [0.29] by read 1 and 1.07 [0.30] by read 2), and the correlation improved (r = 0.675 to 0.872 and 0.887). The mean time required for manual adjustment (37 [20] seconds) was significantly less than the time required to perform measurements entirely manually (100 [23] seconds). CONCLUSIONS: Automated CT RV/LV diameter ratio software shows promise for integration into the clinical workflow for patients with acute pulmonary embolism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".