MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302409860

Atherosclerosis imaging.

2005· article· en· W4302409860 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Claude Tardif

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntravascular ultrasoundClinical trialLumen (anatomy)RadiologyCoronary artery diseaseCoronary atherosclerosisCardiologyGold standard (test)Natural historyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atherosclerosis imaging has become increasingly important in the understanding of the natural history of coronary artery disease and the processes leading to luminal narrowing, as well as in the assessment of disease burden and therapy efficacy. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has emerged as the new gold standard for atherosclerosis imaging because it provides cross-sectional images of both the arterial wall and lumen with excellent resolution, reveals the diffuse nature of atherosclerosis and the involvement of reference segments, and takes into account vessel wall remodelling. In addition to its clinical indications, IVUS is now widely used as the primary efficacy assessment measure of several antiatherosclerotic approaches in randomized clinical trials. The advantages of using IVUS include its ability to reveal antiatherosclerotic effects within a relatively short period of time and with a reasonable sample size, in contrast to trials assessing angiographic changes or clinical events. IVUS can also help to determine dose-response relationships in the development of novel pharmacological agents. IVUS is currently the ideal imaging modality for clinical trials examining the progression or regression of atherosclerosis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2090.181

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207