MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144512913 · doi:10.1177/08465371211000737

Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology/Canadian Association of Radiologists Best Practice Guidance for Investigation of Acute Pulmonary Embolism, Part 1: Acquisition and Safety Considerations

2021· article· en· W3144512913 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elsie T. Nguyen, Cameron Hague, Daria Manos, Brett Memauri, Carolina A. Souza, Jana Taylor, Carole Dennie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface HospitalUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismContext (archaeology)RadiologyCulpritPresentation (obstetrics)Intensive care medicineProtocol (science)Pericardial effusionMedical physicsSurgeryMyocardial infarctionInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) is a well-recognized cause of circulatory system compromise and even demise which can frequently present a diagnostic challenge for the physician. The diagnostic challenge is primarily due to the frequency of indeterminate presentations as well as several other conditions which can have a similar clinical presentation. This often obliges the physician to establish a firm diagnosis due to the potentially serious outcomes related to this disease. Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) has increasingly cemented its role as the primary investigation tool in this clinical context and is widely accepted as the standard of care due to several desired attributes which include great accuracy, accessibility, rapid turn-around time and the ability to suggest an alternate diagnosis when APE is not the culprit. In Part 1 of this guidance document, a series of up-to-date recommendations are provided to the reader pertaining to CTPA protocol optimization (including scan range, radiation and intravenous contrast dose), safety measures including the departure from breast and gonadal shielding, population-specific scenarios (pregnancy and early post-partum) and consideration of alternate diagnostic techniques when clinically deemed appropriate.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.032

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207