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 OpenAlexaff
Kristopher S. Cunningham, Danna Spears, Melanie Care

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.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.474
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

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

Citations52
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForensic Sciences ResearchSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207