MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902009843 · doi:10.15420/icr.2015.10.03.142

Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection

2015· article· en· W2902009843 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline Saw

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Cardiology Reviews Research Resources · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScadPathognomonicArtery dissectionMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineArteryDissection (medical)Acute coronary syndromeCoronary angiographyCoronary artery diseaseRadiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a non-traumatic and non-iatrogenic separation of the coronary artery wall that is now recognised as an important cause of myocardial infarction, especially in younger women. SCAD can be elusive on coronary angiography and clinician familiarity with non-pathognomonic angiographic SCAD variants and the use of intracoronary imaging will improve diagnosis. Conservative management and long-term cardiovascular follow-up are typically recommended.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.256 · 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.

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

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventional Cardiology Reviews Research ResourcesSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207