MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806302551 · doi:10.1186/s41512-018-0032-7

Ruling out pulmonary embolism across different subgroups of patients and healthcare settings: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA)

2018· review· en· W2806302551 on OpenAlex
Geert‐Jan Geersing, Noémie Kraaijpoel, Harry R. Büller, Sander van Doorn, Nick van Es, Grégoire Le Gal, Menno V. Huisman, Clive Kearon, Jeffrey A. Kline, Karel G.M. Moons, Massimo Miniati, Marc Righini, P.-M. Roy, Sake J. van der Wall, Philip S. Wells, Frederikus A. Klok

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic and Prognostic Research · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersZonMwOttawa Hospital Research InstituteNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismMEDLINEProtocol (science)Health careMeta-analysisComorbidityIntensive care medicineDiagnosis codeMedical physicsAlternative medicinePathologyInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in suspected patients is notoriously difficult as signs and symptoms are non-specific. Different diagnostic strategies have been developed, usually combining clinical probability assessment with D-dimer testing. However, their predictive performance differs across different healthcare settings, patient subgroups, and clinical presentation, which are currently not accounted for in the available diagnostic approaches. METHODS: This is a protocol for a large diagnostic individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) of currently available diagnostic studies in the field of pulmonary embolism. We searched MEDLINE (search date January 1, 1995, till August 25, 2016) to retrieve all primary diagnostic studies that had evaluated diagnostic strategies for pulmonary embolism. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and subsequently full-text articles for eligibility from 3145 individual studies. A total of 40 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion into our IPDMA set, and principal investigators from these studies were invited to participate in a meeting at the 2017 conference from the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. All authors agreed on data sharing and participation into this project. The process of data collection of available datasets as well as potential identification of additional new datasets based upon personal contacts and an updated search will be finalized early 2018. The aim is to evaluate diagnostic strategies across three research domains: (i) the optimal diagnostic approach for different healthcare settings, (ii) influence of comorbidity on the predictive performance of each diagnostic strategy, and (iii) optimize and tailor the efficiency and safety of ruling out PE across a broad spectrum of patients with a new, patient-tailored clinical decision model that combines clinical items with quantitative D-dimer testing. DISCUSSION: This pre-planned individual patient data meta-analysis aims to contribute in resolving remaining diagnostic challenges of time-efficient diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by tailoring available diagnostic strategies for different healthcare settings and comorbidity. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Prospero trial registration: ID 89366.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.373
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.133 · 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