MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085491819 · doi:10.3322/caac.21635

Cardio‐oncology care in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic: An International Cardio‐Oncology Society (ICOS) statement

2020· review· en· W3085491819 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Lenihan, Joseph R. Carver, Charles Porter, Jennifer E. Liu, Susan Dent, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Joshua D. Mitchell, Anju Nohria, Michael G. Fradley, Iskra Pusic, Keith Stockerl‐Goldstein, Anne Blaes, Alexander R. Lyon, Sarju Ganatra, Teresa López‐Fernández, Rupal O’Quinn, Giorgio Minotti, Sebastian Szmit, Daniela Cardinale, Jose Alvarez‐Cardona, Giuseppe Curigliano, Tomas G. Neilan, Joerg Herrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsPandemicMedicineDiseaseIntensive care medicineContext (archaeology)OutbreakPopulationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CancerGlobal healthInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)Public healthVirologyEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has given rise to a pandemic of unprecedented proportions in the modern era because of its highly contagious nature and impact on human health and society: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Patients with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and established CV disease (CVD) are among those initially identified at the highest risk for serious complications, including death. Subsequent studies have pointed out that patients with cancer are also at high risk for a critical disease course. Therefore, the most vulnerable patients are seemingly those with both cancer and CVD, and a careful, unified approach in the evaluation and management of this patient population is especially needed in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of the unique implications of the viral outbreak for the field of cardio-oncology and outlines key modifications in the approach to this ever-increasing patient population. These modifications include a shift toward greater utilization of cardiac biomarkers and a more focused CV imaging approach in the broader context of modifications to typical practice pathways. The goal of this strategic adjustment is to minimize the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other future viral outbreaks) while not becoming negligent of CVD and its important impact on the overall outcomes of patients who are being treated for cancer.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.404
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations38
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCA A Cancer Journal for CliniciansSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207