MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392221758 · doi:10.1016/j.diii.2024.02.005

Imaging of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension before, during and after balloon pulmonary angioplasty

2024· article· en· W4392221758 on OpenAlexaff
Alfredo Páez-Carpio, Iván Vollmer, Federico X. Zarco, Mario Matute‐González, Blanca Domènech-Ximenos, Elena Serrano, Joan Albert Barberà, Isabel Blanco, Fernando M. Gómez

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic and Interventional Imaging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionBalloonAngioplastyRadiologyPulmonary hypertensionWork-upCOPDInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) has recently been elevated as a class I recommendation for the treatment of inoperable or residual chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Proper patient selection, procedural safety, and post-procedural evaluation are crucial in the management of these patients, with imaging work-up playing a pivotal role. Understanding the diagnostic and therapeutic imaging algorithms of CTEPH, the imaging features of patients amenable to BPA, all imaging findings observed during and immediately after the procedure and the changes observed during the follow-up is crucial for all interventional radiologists involved in the care of patients with CTEPH. This article illustrates the imaging work-up of patients with CTEPH amenable to BPA, the imaging findings observed before, during and after BPA, and provides a detailed description of all imaging modalities available for CTEPH evaluation.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnostic and Interventional ImagingSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207