MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092031531 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000002583

Imaging the Injured Lung

2019· review· en· W3092031531 on OpenAlexaff
Maurizio Cereda, Yi Xin, Alberto Goffi, Jacob Herrmann, David W. Kaczka, Brian P. Kavanagh, Gaetano Perchiazzi, Takeshi Yoshida, Rahim R. Rizi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineARDSAcute respiratory distressIntensive care medicineLungRadiologyDiffuse alveolar damageRespiratory distressInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) consists of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure characterized by massive and heterogeneously distributed loss of lung aeration caused by diffuse inflammation and edema present in interstitial and alveolar spaces. It is defined by consensus criteria, which include diffuse infiltrates on chest imaging-either plain radiography or computed tomography. This review will summarize how imaging sciences can inform modern respiratory management of ARDS and continue to increase the understanding of the acutely injured lung. This review also describes newer imaging methodologies that are likely to inform future clinical decision-making and potentially improve outcome. For each imaging modality, this review systematically describes the underlying principles, technology involved, measurements obtained, insights gained by the technique, emerging approaches, limitations, and future developments. Finally, integrated approaches are considered whereby multimodal imaging may impact management of ARDS.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207