MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285804608 · doi:10.31083/j.rcm2307251

When Intracoronary Anatomy is Superior to Physiology

2022· review· en· W4285804608 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ned Premyodhin, Morton J. Kern, Arnold H. Seto

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedicure
KeywordsMedicineCoronary anatomyCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyFractional flow reserveDiseaseInternal medicineRadiologyCoronary angiographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physiologic assessment has become an essential tool to guide revascularization decisions due to the multiple limitations of angiographic and anatomic measures of physiologic significance. However, in certain cases the apparent physiologic measurement may not accurately reflect the severity of coronary disease compared with anatomical measurements. This article will review how anatomy trumps physiology in cases of acute coronary syndromes, left main disease, saphenous vein graft lesions, and myocardial bridging, and how to overcome the limitations of physiologic measurement in these clinical situations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207