MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294786538 · doi:10.1097/lbr.0000000000000892

Diagnostic Accuracy of Bronchoscopy Procedures

2022· article· en· W4294786538 on OpenAlexaff
Anne V. Gonzalez, David E. Ost, Samira Shojaee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfusionBronchoscopyDiagnostic accuracyPaceDiagnostic testMedical physicsRadiologyIntensive care medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of diagnostic bronchoscopy has developed at an accelerated pace. Certain limitations have plagued the evaluation of advanced bronchoscopy techniques, including the use of inconsistently defined measures of diagnostic accuracy, and confusion around the definition of "diagnostic yield." This methodological review outlines standard measures of diagnostic accuracy and highlights how these differ from "diagnostic yield." We draw examples from the interventional bronchoscopy literature to illustrate key concepts and potential pitfalls.

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)0.111
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.400
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1110.400
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bronchology & Interventional PulmonologySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207