MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969378084 · doi:10.1080/20961790.2019.1633761

Evaluation of cardiac hypertrophy in the setting of sudden cardiac death

2019· review· en· W2969378084 on OpenAlex

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

VenueForensic Sciences Research · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypertrophic cardiomyopathyCardiologyAutopsySudden cardiac deathPathologicalMedicineLeft ventricular hypertrophyInternal medicineCardiac hypertrophyMuscle hypertrophySudden deathVentricular hypertrophyCardiomyopathyHeart failureBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ventricular hypertrophy is a common pathological finding at autopsy that can act as a substrate for arrhythmogenesis. Pathologists grapple with the significance of ventricular hypertrophy when assessing the sudden and unexpected deaths of young people and what it could mean for surviving family members. The pathological spectrum of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is reviewed herein. This article is oriented to the practicing autopsy pathologist to help make sense of various patterns of increased heart muscle, particularly those that are not clearly cardiomyopathic, yet present in the setting of sudden cardiac death. The article also reviews factors influencing arrhythmogenesis as well as genetic mutations most commonly associated with ventricular hypertrophy, especially those associated with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.474
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.058 · 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