MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956219171 · doi:10.1714/3190.31683

Calcio coronarico: patogenesi e rischio cardiovascolare

2019· review· en· W2956219171 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo Raggi

Bibliographic record

VenueGiornale italiano di cardiologia · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiomarkers in Disease Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical significanceCoronary artery diseaseDiabetes mellitusDiseaseContext (archaeology)CardiologyInternal medicineEpidemiologyPathogenesisKidney diseasePopulationInflammationEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atherosclerosis is an almost universal disease of human kind and involves infiltration of lipids, inflammation and calcification in the subintimal space. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) accumulates within the context of subintimal atherosclerosis and is a highly specific marker of pre-clinical disease. The prognostic significance of CAC has been elucidated during the past 20 years of research and it is now considered the best non-invasive marker to enhance prediction of adverse events in the general population as well as several disease states, such as diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease and HIV. However, the prognostic significance of CAC is not the same for all carriers of this marker, although it is well established that its absence is associated with an extremely low and long-lasting probability of cardiovascular events even in subjects at high risk. In this review, we discuss the current knowledge of the epidemiology and clinical significance of CAC in patients of different race, sex and age and summarize the current recommendations on its use in clinical practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGiornale italiano di cardiologiaSame topicBiomarkers in Disease MechanismsFrench-language works237,207