MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416714640

Guidelines for the provision of echocardiography in Canada: recommendations of a joint Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Society of Echocardiography Consensus Panel.

2005· article· en· W2416714640 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anthony Sanfilippo, David Bewick, Kah Lok Chan, Bibiana C̆ujec, J. Dumesnil, George Honos, Brad Munt, Zion Sasson, James W. Tam, Charles Tomlinson, Ayman Aboguddah, Shaheeda Ahmed, Mohamed Ali, Marie Arsenault, Kathryn J. Ascah, Tom Ashton, Michael C. Baird, Arsène Basmadjian, François Béı̈que, Marie-Josee Blais, Gary Burggraf, Ian G. Burwash, Jessica Cochrane, Susan C. Fagan, Peter J. Giannoccaro, William Hughes, Alan Jones, John Jue, Chris Koilpillai, Marie-Hélène Leblanc, Colleen Londry, Dennis R. Morgan, Michael S. O’Reilly, Corey Sawchuk, Samuel C. Siu, Randy Sochowski, Guy Tremblay, Lisa Welikovitch, Eric Yu

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonographerMedicineCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyDiversity (politics)UltrasonographyCardiologyRadiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognizing the central role of echocardiographic examinations in the assessment of most cardiac disorders and the need to ensure the provision of these services in a highly reliable, timely, economical and safe manner, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society and Canadian Society of Echocardiography undertook a comprehensive review of all aspects influencing the provision of echocardiographic services in Canada. Five regional panels were established to develop preliminary recommendations in the five component areas, which included the echocardiographic examination, the echocardiographic laboratory and report, the physician, the sonographer and indications for examinations. Membership in the panels was structured to recognize the regional professional diversity of individuals involved in the provision of echocardiography. In addition, a focus group of cardiac sonograhers was recruited to review aspects of the document impacting on sonographer responsibilities and qualification. The document is intended to be used as a comprehensive and practical reference for all of those involved in the provision of echocardiography in Canada.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0110.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207