Cardiac hypertrophy at autopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since cardiac hypertrophy may be considered a cause of death at autopsy, its assessment requires a uniform approach. Common terminology and methodology to measure the heart weight, size, and thickness as well as a systematic use of cut off values for normality by age, gender, and body weight and height are needed. For these reasons, recommendations have been written on behalf of the Association for European Cardiovascular Pathology. The diagnostic work up implies the search for pressure and volume overload conditions, compensatory hypertrophy, storage and infiltrative disorders, and cardiomyopathies. Although some gross morphologic features can point to a specific diagnosis, systematic histologic analysis, followed by possible immunostaining and transmission electron microscopy, is essential for a final diagnosis. If the autopsy is carried out in a general or forensic pathology service without expertise in cardiovascular pathology, the entire heart (or pictures) together with mapped histologic slides should be sent for a second opinion to a pathologist with such an expertise. Indication for postmortem genetic testing should be integrated into the multidisciplinary management of sudden cardiac death.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".