MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200734220 · doi:10.2196/33181

Peer Review of “Use of Smartphone Apps for Improving Physical Function Capacity in Cardiac Patient Rehabilitation: Systematic Review”

2021· article· en· W3200734220 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karla Fabiana Goessler

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIRx Med · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationFunction (biology)MedicinePhysical therapyPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apps for Improving Physical Function Capacity in Cardiac Patient Rehabilitation: Systematic Review". Review Round 1 General CommentsThis is a systematic review [1] investigating the utilization of smartphone apps for improving physical function capacity in cardiac rehabilitation (CR).Please find below my comments/suggestions.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.295
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.295
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.013
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.005

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIRx MedSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207