MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964862608 · doi:10.4102/sajr.v23i1.1729

Chest radiographs of cardiac devices (Part 1): Lines, tubes, non-cardiac medical devices and materials

2019· review· en· W2964862608 on OpenAlex
Rishi Philip Mathew, Timothy Alexander, Vimal Patel, Gavin Low

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

VenueSouth African Journal of Radiology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiographyRadiologyCardiorespiratory fitnessIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chest radiographs (CXRs) are the most common imaging investigations undertaken because of their value in evaluating the cardiorespiratory system. They play a vital role in intensive care units for evaluating the critically ill. It is therefore very common for the radiologist to encounter tubes, lines, medical devices and materials on a daily basis. It is important for the interpreting radiologist not only to identify these iatrogenic objects, but also to look for their accurate placement as well as for any complications related to their placement, which may be seen either on the immediate post-procedural CXR or on a follow-up CXR. In this article, we discussed and illustrated the routinely encountered tubes and lines that one may see on a CXR as well as some of their complications. In addition, we also provide a brief overview of other important non-cardiac medical devices and materials that may be seen on CXRs.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.297 · 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