Big Data in Cardiology: State-of-Art and Future Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiological disorders contribute to a significant portion of the global burden of disease. Cardiology can benefit from Big Data, which are generated and released by different sources and channels, like epidemiological surveys, national registries, electronic clinical records, claims-based databases (epidemiological Big Data), wet-lab, and next-generation sequencing (molecular Big Data), smartphones, smartwatches, and other mobile devices, sensors and wearable technologies, imaging techniques (computational Big Data), non-conventional data streams such as social networks, and web queries (digital Big Data), among others. Big Data is increasingly having a more and more relevant role, being highly ubiquitous and pervasive in contemporary society and paving the way for new, unprecedented perspectives in biomedicine, including cardiology. Big Data can be a real paradigm shift that revolutionizes cardiological practice and clinical research. However, some methodological issues should be properly addressed (like recording and association biases) and some ethical issues should be considered (such as privacy). Therefore, further research in the field is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".