MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Techniques and Applications for Pericardial Diseases

2022· review· en· W4283804343 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPericarditis and Cardiac Tamponade
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingPericardiumPericardial effusionMedicineCardiac magnetic resonanceCardiac magnetic resonance imagingRadiologyCardiac imagingCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging plays a central role among multimodality imaging modalities in the assessment, diagnosis, and surveillance of pericardial diseases. Clinicians and imagers should have a foundational understanding of the utilities, advantages, and limitations of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and how they integrate with other diagnostic tools involved in the evaluation and management of pericardial diseases. This review aims to outline the contemporary magnetic resonance imaging sequences used to evaluate the pericardium, followed by exploring the main clinical applications of magnetic resonance imaging for identifying pericardial inflammation, constriction, and effusion.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.272 · 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