MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976015377 · doi:10.4103/eus.eus_57_19

What should be known prior to performing EUS exams? (Part II)

2019· review· en· W2976015377 on OpenAlexaff
ChristophF Dietrich, Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono, Barbara Braden, S. Burmeister, Silvia Carrara, MilenaDi Leo, Yi Dong, Pietro Fusaroli, Uwe Gottschalk, AndrewJ Healey, Michael Hocke, Stephan Hollerbach, JulioIglesias Garcia, A Ignee, Christian Jürgensen, Michel Kahaleh, Masayuki Kitano, Rastislav Kunda, Alberto Larghi, Kathleen Möller, Bertrand Napoléon, KofiW Oppong, Maria Chiara Petrone, Adrian Săftoiu, Rajesh Puri, AnandV Sahai, Erwin Santo, Malay Sharma, Assaad Soweid, Siyu Sun, AnthonyYuen Bun Teoh, Peter Vilmann, H Seifert, Christian Jenssen

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopic Ultrasound · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical physicsInformation retrievalComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In "What should be known prior to performing EUS exams, Part I," the authors discussed the need for clinical information and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking EUS examinations. Herewith, we present part II which addresses some (technical) controversies how EUS is performed and discuss from different points of view providing the relevant evidence as available. (1) Does equipment design influence the complication rate? (2) Should we have a standardized screen orientation? (3) Radial EUS versus longitudinal (linear) EUS. (4) Should we search for incidental findings using EUS?

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopic UltrasoundSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207