MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386499196 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2023.09.001

Chest Pain Evaluation: Diagnostic Testing

2023· article· en· W4386499196 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin J.W. Chow, Paul Galiwango, Anthony Poulin, Paolo Raggi, Gary R. Small, Daniel Juneau, Mustapha Kazmi, Bilal Ayach, Rob Beanlands, Anthony Sanfilippo, Chi-Ming Chow, D. Ian Paterson, Michael Chetrit, Davinder S. Jassal, Kim A. Connelly, Éric Larose, Helen Bishop, Malek Kass, Todd J. Anderson, Majed Haddad, John Mancini, Katie M. Doucet, Jean-Sebastien Daigle, Amir Ahmadi, Jonathan Leipsic, Siok Ping Lim, Andrew D. McRae, Annie Chou

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health CentreSt. Michael's HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of AlbertaLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
FundersSiemens HealthineersTD Bank
KeywordsMedicineChest painIntensive care medicineDiagnostic testModalitiesEtiologyPhysical therapyEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chest pain/discomfort (CP) is a common symptom and can be a diagnostic dilemma for many clinicians. The misdiagnosis of an acute or progressive chronic cardiac etiology may carry a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. This review summarizes the different options and modalities for establishing the diagnosis and severity of coronary artery disease. An effective test selection algorithm should be individually tailored to each patient to maximize diagnostic accuracy in a timely fashion, determine short- and long-term prognosis, and permit implementation of evidence-based treatments in a cost-effective manner. Through collaboration, a decision algorithm was developed (www.chowmd.ca/cadtesting) that could be adopted widely into clinical practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207