MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400844658 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2024.07.014

Use of Artificial Intelligence Including Multimodal Systems to Improve the Management of Cardiovascular Disease

2024· review· en· W4400844658 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Biyanka Jaltotage, Juan Lü, Girish Dwivedi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultimodalityMedicineWorkflowDiseaseModality (human–computer interaction)Field (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceApplications of artificial intelligenceData scienceComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rising prevalence of cardiovascular disease presents an escalating challenge for current health services, which are grappling with increasing demands. Innovative changes are imperative to sustain the delivery of high-quality patient care. Recent technologic advances have resulted in the emergence of artificial intelligence as a viable solution. Advanced algorithms are now capable of performing complex analysis of large volumes of data rapidly and with exceptional accuracy. Multimodality artificial intelligence systems handle a diverse range of data including images, text, video, and audio. Compared with single-modality systems, multimodal artificial intelligence systems appear to hold promise for enhancing overall performance and enabling smoother integration into existing workflows. Such systems can empower physicians with clinical decision support and enhanced efficiency. Owing to the complexity of the field, however, truly multimodal artificial intelligence is still scarce in the management of cardiovascular disease. This article aims to cover current research, emerging trends, and the future utilisation of artificial intelligence in the management of cardiovascular disease, with a focus on multimodality systems.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

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

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CardiologySame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207