MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400356345 · doi:10.1007/s00247-024-05980-y

Urgent and emergent pediatric cardiovascular imaging

2024· review· en· W4400356345 on OpenAlexaff
Charlotte de Lange, Carlos Marín, Claudia Martinez‐Rios, Christopher Z. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Radiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersGöteborgs Universitet
KeywordsMedicineNeuroradiologyCardiac imagingIntensive care medicineMedical physicsRadiologyNeurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need for urgent or emergent cardiovascular imaging in children is rare when compared to adults. Patients may present from the neonatal period up to adolescence, and may require imaging for both traumatic and non-traumatic causes. In children, coronary pathology is rarely the cause of an emergency unlike in adults where it is the main cause. Radiology, including chest radiography and computed tomography in conjunction with echocardiography, often plays the most important role in the acute management of these patients. Magnetic resonance imaging can occasionally be useful and may be suitable in more subacute cases. Radiologists' knowledge of how to manage and interpret these acute conditions including knowing which imaging technique to use is fundamental to appropriate care. In this review, we will concentrate on the most common cardiovascular emergencies in the thoracic region, including thoracic traumatic and non-traumatic emergencies and pulmonary vascular emergencies, as well as acute clinical disorders as a consequence of primary and postoperative congenital heart disease. This review will cover situations where cardiovascular imaging may be acutely needed, and not strictly emergencies only. Imaging recommendations will be discussed according to the different clinical presentations and underlying pathology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric RadiologySame topicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207