MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042292688 · doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.03.025

A Boosted Ensemble Algorithm for Determination of Plaque Stability in High-Risk Patients on Coronary CTA

2020· article· en· W3042292688 on OpenAlexaff
Subhi J. Al’Aref, Gurpreet Singh, Jeong Won Choi, Zhuoran Xu, Gabriel Maliakal, Alexander R. van Rosendael, Benjamin C. Lee, Zahra Fatima, Daniele Andreini, Jeroen J. Bax, Filippo Cademartiri, Kavitha M. Chinnaiyan, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Edoardo Conte, Ricardo C. Cury, Gudruf Feuchtner, Martin Hadamitzky, Yong‐Jin Kim, Sang‐Eun Lee, Jonathon Leipsic, Erica Maffei, Hugo Marques, Fabian Plank, Gianluca Pontone, Gilbert Raff, Todd C. Villines, Harald G. Weirich, Iksung Cho, Ibrahim Danad, Donghee Han, Ran Heo, Ji Hyun Lee, Asim Rizvi, Wijnand J. Stuijfzand, Heidi Gransar, Yao Lu, Ji Min Sung, Hyung‐Bok Park, Daniel S. Berman, Matthew J. Budoff, Habib Samady, Peter H. Stone, Renu Virmani, Jagat Narula, Hyuk‐Jae Chang, Fay Y. Lin, Lohendran Baskaran, Leslee J. Shaw, James K. Min

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersWeill Cornell Medical CollegeAbbott VascularGE HealthcareSiemens HealthineersNational Institutes of HealthMedtronicMinistry of Science, ICT and Future PlanningBiotronikNational Research FoundationSiemens Medical Solutions USABayer FundGlaxoSmithKlineCedars-Sinai Medical CenterNational Research Foundation of KoreaTD BankBoston Scientific CorporationEdwards LifesciencesDalio Foundation
KeywordsMedicineStability (learning theory)CardiologyAlgorithmInternal medicineComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations58
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJACC. Cardiovascular imagingSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207