MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009247694 · doi:10.1177/0846537119899226

Sources of Error in Interventional Radiology: How, Why, and When

2020· review· en· W3009247694 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Mafeld, George Oreopoulos, Emily Musing, Tze Yuan Chan, Arash Jaberi, Dheeraj K. Rajan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical physicsInterventional radiologySpecialtyRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims to provide an overview of the sources for error in interventional radiology (IR). Being both a procedure and an imaging-based specialty, IR has unique considerations as to how error can occur. However, compared to the surgical and medical literature, data on error in IR are lacking. The available IR literature is reviewed but supplemented with lessons from other specialties and the World Health Organization. Individual risks such as cognitive bias as well as system-level factors are also considered in order to generate a taxonomy for error in IR that includes the operator, patient, team, and environment.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207