Cardiovascular magnetic resonance for evaluation of cardiac involvement in COVID-19: recommendations by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing global pandemic that has affected nearly 600 million people to date across the world. While COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory illness, cardiac injury is also known to occur. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is uniquely capable of characterizing myocardial tissue properties in-vivo, enabling insights into the pattern and degree of cardiac injury. The reported prevalence of myocardial involvement identified by CMR in the context of COVID-19 infection among previously hospitalized patients ranges from 26 to 60%. Variations in the reported prevalence of myocardial involvement may result from differing patient populations (e.g. differences in severity of illness) and the varying intervals between acute infection and CMR evaluation. Standardized methodologies in image acquisition, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of CMR abnormalities across would likely improve concordance between studies. This consensus document by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) provides recommendations on CMR imaging and reporting metrics towards the goal of improved standardization and uniform data acquisition and analytic approaches when performing CMR in patients with COVID-19 infection.
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 | 0.029 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".