MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626113803 · doi:10.1097/rti.0000000000000275

Measuring Left Ventricular Size in Non–Electrocardiographic-gated Chest Computed Tomography

2017· review· en· W2626113803 on OpenAlex
Felipe Soares Torres, Luciano Folador, Diego André Eifer, Murilo Foppa, Kate Hanneman

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

VenueJournal of Thoracic Imaging · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiologyComputed tomographyElectrocardiographyMultidetector computed tomographyTomographyCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-electrocardiographic (ECG)-gated computed tomography (CT) of the chest is one of the most commonly performed imaging studies. Although the heart is included in every CT study, cardiac findings are commonly underreported in radiology reports. Left ventricular size is one of the most important prognostic markers in multiple cardiac diseases and can be measured on almost all non-ECG-gated multidetector chest CT studies. This review will discuss the available evidence on different measurements of left ventricular size obtained on non-ECG-gated CT of the chest. Measurement thresholds, technical issues, and potential problems are emphasized, with practical recommendations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.313 · 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