MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402795889 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccao.2024.07.017

Cardiovascular Considerations Before Cancer Therapy

2024· review· fi· W4402795889 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC CardioOncology · 2024
Typereview
Languagefi
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancer therapyCancerMedicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Baseline cardiovascular assessment before the initiation of potentially cardiotoxic cancer therapies is a key component of cardio-oncology, aiming to reduce cardiovascular complications and morbidity in patients and survivors. Recent clinical practice guidelines provide both general and cancer therapy-specific recommendations for baseline cardiovascular toxicity risk assessment and management, including the use of dedicated risk scores, cardiovascular imaging, and biomarker testing. However, the value of such interventions in altering disease trajectories has not been established, with many recommendations based on expert opinion or Level of Evidence: C, studies with a potential for high risk of bias. Advances in understanding underlying mechanisms of cardiotoxicity and the increased availability of genetic and immunologic profiling present new opportunities for personalized risk assessment. This paper evaluates the existing evidence on cardiovascular care of cancer patients before cardiotoxic cancer therapy and highlights gaps in evidence and priorities for future research.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.290 · 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