MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330608749 · doi:10.1055/s-0032-1310654

Hat die CT noch eine Bedeutung in der Leberdiagnostik?

2012· article· de· W2330608749 on OpenAlex
P Rogalla

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren · 2012
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging and Pathology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keine andere Untersuchungstechnik hat die Bildgebung so drastisch verändert wie die Computertomographie. Sie ist schnell, objektiv, robust, universell und reproduzierbar. Vom Adenom bis zur Zyste, kaum eine Leberläsion lässt sich nicht in der CT diagnostizieren. Vor allem mittels Aufnahmen in verschiedenen Perfusionphasen lassen sich – von wenigen Ausnahmen abgesehen – fokale Leberläsionen charakterisieren. Gallenwegsdarstellung, Dual-energy und Perfusionsuntersuchung erweiteren sogar das Spektrum der Diagnostik und liefern neben Morphologie auch wichtige Funktionsparameter, vor allem bei onkologischen Fragestellungen. Seit 40 Jahren immer wieder einmal tot geglaubt, hat die CT wiederholt die Führung übernommen und stellt heute eine tragende, unverzichtbare Säule der Leberbildgebung dar.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.289 · 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