Analysis of the restoration of cardiology diagnostics scope in the Russian Federation during the COVID-19 pandemic: results of the Russian segment of the INCAPS COVID 2 study under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim . To assess the changes in cardiology diagnostics scope in the Russian Federation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Material and methods . In an online survey organized by the Division of Human Health of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), including questions about changes in the workflow of diagnostic laboratories and the scope of cardiac diagnostics from March 2019 (pre-pandemic) to April 2020 (first wave of the pandemic) and April 2021 (recovery stage), 15 Russian medical centers from 5 cities took part. Results . The decrease in the diagnostics scope by April 2020 by 59,3% compared to March 2019, by April 2021, stopped and was replaced by growth (+7,1%, the recovery rate, 112,1%). The greatest increase was in routine examinations, such as echocardiography (+11,6%), stress echocardiography (+18,7%), stress single photon emission computed tomography (+9,7%), and to a lesser extent resting computed tomography angiography (+7,0%) and magnetic resonance imaging (+6,6%). The performance of stress electrocardiography, stress magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography for the diagnosis of endocarditis in April 2021 compared to March 2019 decreased by 10,3%, 63,2% and 62,5%, respectively. Conclusion . Due to the resumption of patient admissions for cardiac examinations during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, with the anti-epidemic measures taken and certain changes in the workflow, there has been a recovery in the diagnostics scope in most of the included centers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".