MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099150456 · doi:10.1186/s12968-020-00682-4

SCMR Position Paper (2020) on clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance

2020· review· en· W3099150456 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsMedicineComparabilityMedical physicsAngiologyPosition paperGrading (engineering)Magnetic resonance imagingRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineRadiologyPathologyCardiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) last published its comprehensive expert panel report of clinical indications for CMR in 2004. This new Consensus Panel report brings those indications up to date for 2020 and includes the very substantial increase in scanning techniques, clinical applicability and adoption of CMR worldwide. We have used a nearly identical grading system for indications as in 2004 to ensure comparability with the previous report but have added the presence of randomized controlled trials as evidence for level 1 indications. In addition to the text, tables of the consensus indication levels are included for rapid assimilation and illustrative figures of some key techniques are provided.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.027
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.299 · 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