MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4211031314 · doi:10.7175/rhc.3023171-184

Exercise stress testing in clinical practice

2011· article· en· W4211031314 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francesco Giallauria, A Grieco, Angelo Russo, Luigi Maresca, Maria Elisabetta Mancini, Alessandra Vitelli, Sara Aurino, Carlo Vigorito

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Health Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStress testing (software)CardiologyStress testInternal medicinePercutaneous coronary interventionAnginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyCardiovascular eventPopulationPhysical therapyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exercise stress testing is an important diagnostic tool for evaluating patient’s cardiovascular performance. The present review describes the accuracy and the value of exercise stress testing in different settings: after an acute coronary event, after percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft; in patients risk assessment before non-cardiac surgery; in diabetic population; in patients with baseline electrocardiographic abnormalities. Moreover, this review provides insights relating to test accuracy in women and geriatric patients. Finally, this review explores new variables/parameters (dyspnea, chronotropic incompentence, heart rate recovery, functional capacity, integrated scores) that in the last few years added an incremental value to conventional analysis of exercise-induced angina or electrocardiographic changes.

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)0.021
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Health Care→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→