MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406933338 · doi:10.1016/j.jocmr.2025.101840

Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance recommendations toward environmentally sustainable cardiovascular magnetic resonance

2025· article· en· W4406933338 on OpenAlexafffund
Kate Hanneman, Eugenio Picano, Adrienne Campbell‐Washburn, Qiang Zhang, Lorna P. Browne, Rebecca Kozor, Thomas Battey, Reed A. Omary, Paulo Hilário Nascimento Saldiva, Ming Ng, Andrea Rockall, Meng Law, Helen Kim, Yoo Jin Lee, Rebecca Mills, Ntobeko Ntusi, Chiara Bucciarelli‐Ducci, Michael Markl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCircle Cardiovascular ImagingBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsMedicineAngiologyMagnetic resonance imagingCardiac magnetic resonanceCardiologyNuclear magnetic resonanceRadiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delivery of health care, including medical imaging, generates substantial global greenhouse gas emissions. The cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) community has an opportunity to decrease our carbon footprint, mitigate the effects of the climate crisis, and develop resiliency to current and future impacts of climate change. The goal of this document is to review and recommend actions and strategies to allow for CMR operation with improved sustainability, including efficient CMR protocols and CMR imaging workflow strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, energy, and waste, and to decrease reliance on finite resources, including helium and waterbody contamination by gadolinium-based contrast agents. The article also highlights the potential of artificial intelligence and new hardware concepts, such as low-helium and low-field CMR, in achieving these aims. Specific actions include powering down magnetic resonance imaging scanners overnight and when not in use, reducing low-value CMR, and implementing efficient, non-contrast, and abbreviated CMR protocols when feasible. Data on estimated energy and greenhouse gas savings are provided where it is available, and areas of future research are highlighted.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0140.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.037

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 head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207