MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2435094478 · doi:10.4172/2368-0512.1000060

'Physiological hypertrophy of the heart' is a misnomer

2016· article· en· W2435094478 on OpenAlexaffvenue
K Rakusan

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent research. Cardiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisnomerCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term ‘hypertrophy’ means an abnormal growth (eg, cardiac hypertrophy is understood as an abnormal growth of cardiac mass due to an increase in the size of myocytes). A second meaning of the term ‘physiological’ is, according to the dictionary, normal. Taking the above interpretations into consideration, we arrive at an amusing semantic incompatibility: cardiac physiological hypertrophy would mean ‘normal abnormal growth of the heart’. Authors who coined this term most likely intended to refer to cardiac hypertrophy achieved by physiological stimuli.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent research. CardiologySame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207