MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416106440 · doi:10.1177/0310057x0803600103

Computerised Tomography for the Detection of Pulmonary Emboli in Intensive Care Patients—a Retrospective Cohort Study

2008· article· en· W2416106440 on OpenAlex

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

VenueAnaesthesia and Intensive Care · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitAngiographyPulmonary angiographyRadiologyRetrospective cohort studyPulmonary embolismLogistic regressionDeep veinRisk factorIntensive careThrombosisSurgeryInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary emboli are frequently considered as a cause for respiratory deterioration in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, however empirical observation suggests that computerised tomographic (CT) angiography is infrequently positive after the first 24 hours. This study aimed to determine the rate and risk factors for detection of pulmonary emboli by CT angiography in ICU patients. All patients undergoing CT angiography > 24 hours after ICU admission for respiratory deterioration from April 2000 until January 2004 were included. The positivity rate for pulmonary emboli was determined and risk factors analysed. Seven (6%) out of 113 CT angiograms were positive for pulmonary emboli. All were found in trauma patients. Comparing positive to negative scans, predefined risk factors including head injury (5/7 positive scans, 71% vs. 23/106 negative scans, 22%, P = 0.005), spine injury with neurological impairment (4/7, 57% vs. 9/106, 8%, P = 0.002) and lower limb injury (3/7, 43% vs. 12/106, 9%, P = 0.039) were significantly more frequent in patients with positive scans. Deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis was employed less frequently prior to a positive scan (in 3/7, 43% patients with positive scans vs. 91/106, 86% patients with negative scans P = 0.015). Only the predefined risk factors were independently associated with positive CT angiography on limited logistic regression (OR 24.7 per risk factor, 95% CI 2.38 to 255.1, P = 0.007). Pulmonary emboli were infrequently diagnosed using CT angiography in ICU patients admitted for more than 24 hours and found only in patients with recognised risk factors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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