MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intravascular imaging of coronary artery: Bridging the gap between clinical needs and technical advances

2021· review· en· W3200888217 on OpenAlexaff
Atefeh Abdolmanafi, Luc Duong, Ragui Ibrahim, Nagib Dahdah

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsDéveloppement Economique LongueuilÉcole de Technologie SupérieureCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronary artery diseaseBridging (networking)MedicineCoronary atherosclerosisCoronary arteriesIntensive care medicineClinical PracticeIntravascular ultrasoundArteryMyocardial bridgingCardiologyRadiologyCoronary angiographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Almost seven million deaths are reported each year due to coronary disease. Coronary artery events in the adult are primarily due to atherosclerosis with seventy-five percent of the related mortality caused by plaque rupture. Despite significant progress made to improve intravascular imaging of coronary arteries, there is still a large gap between clinical needs and technical developments. The goal of this review is to identify the gap elements between clinical knowledge and recent advances in the domain of medical image analysis. Efficient image analysis computational models should be designed with respect to the exact clinical needs, and detailed features of the tissues under review. In this review, we discuss the detailed clinical features of the intracoronary plaques for mathematical and biomedical researchers. We emphasize the importance of integrating this clinical knowledge validated by clinicians to investigate the potentially effective models for proper features efficiency in the scope of leveraging the state-of-the-art of coronary image analyses.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207