MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326001218 · doi:10.1136/emermed-2014-203871

When should we use diagnostic imaging to investigate for pulmonary embolism in pregnant and postpartum women?

2014· review· en· W2326001218 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Goodacre, Catherine Nelson‐Piercy, Beverley J. Hunt, Wee‐Shian Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine Journal · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health Centre
FundersEuropean Society of Cardiology
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismPregnancyIntensive care medicineHarmMaternal morbidityMedical imagingPostpartum periodMaternal deathObstetricsRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of death in pregnancy and postpartum. Clinicians face a difficult choice when deciding whether to use diagnostic imaging to investigate for suspected PE in these patients, between risking potentially catastrophic consequences of missed diagnosis if imaging is withheld and risking unnecessary iatrogenic harm to both mother and fetus if imaging is overused. This paper explores the options for imaging and evidence for the use of clinical features, clinical predictions scores or biomarkers to select pregnant and postpartum women for imaging. It also considers where future research could be most appropriately directed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmergency Medicine JournalSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207