MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346376580 · doi:10.1111/ajt.13832

Comparing the Variability Between Measurements for Sarcopenia Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography Imaging

2016· letter· en· W2346376580 on OpenAlexaffabout
Puneeta Tandon, Marina Mourtzakis, Gavin Low, Laura Zenith, Michael Ney, Michelle Carbonneau, A. Alaboudy, Sumeer A. Mann, Nina Esfandiari, Mang Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcopeniaCirrhosisHepatocellular carcinomaMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyLiver transplantationTransplantationNuclear medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The meta-analysis by van Vugt and colleagues highlights the independent prognostic value of computed tomography (CT) in evaluating sarcopenia as a predictor of pre- and posttransplant mortality in cirrhosis (1). These data provide strong evidence for using cross-sectional imaging–based surveillance as an objective diagnostic and prognostic tool in identifying sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.036
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations50
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207