MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is it time to screen for cardiometabolic risk factors prior to ART? (Mini-commentary on BJOG-19-1190.R1)

2020· dataset· en· W4250713916 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Nelson Piercy

Bibliographic record

VenueAuthorea · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronary heart disease kills twice as many women as breast cancer in the UK and is the single biggest killer of women worldwide. Underlying risk factors include hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, obesity and smoking. Mulder and colleagues have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature and demonstrated that women with infertility are significantly more likely to have certain cardiometabolic risk factors, namely increased BMI, cholesterol and triglycerides, when compared with fertile women (BJOG 2020 xxxx). The differences are small; cholesterol 18.13 mg/dl (0.47 mmol/l) higher, triglycerides 43.75 mg/dl (0.49 mmol/l) higher and BMI 0.78 kg/m 2 higher.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.014

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAuthoreaSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207