MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7008712445

The coronary CT angiography vision protocol: A prospective observational imaging cohort study in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery

2012· article· en· W7008712445 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsObservational studyAngiographyCohort studyProspective cohort studyComputed tomography angiographyCoronary angiography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: At present, physicians have a limited ability to predict major cardiovascular complications after non-cardiac surgery and little is known about the anatomy of coronary arteries associated with perioperative myocardial infarction.We have initiated the Coronary CT Angiography (CTA) VISION Study to (1) establish the predictive value of coronary CTA for perioperative myocardial infarction and death and (2) describe the coronary anatomy of patients that have a perioperative myocardial infarction. Methods and analysis: The Coronary CTA VISIONStudy is prospective observational study.Preoperative coronary CTA will be performed in 1000-1500 patients with a history of vascular disease or at least three cardiovascular risk factors who are undergoing major elective non-cardiac surgery.Serial troponin will be measured 6-12 h after surgery and daily for the first 3 days after surgery.Major vascular outcomes at 30 days and 1 year after surgery will be independently adjudicated. Ethics and dissemination:Coronary CTA results in a measurable radiation exposure that is similar to a nuclear perfusion scan (10-12 mSV).Treating physicians will be blinded to the CTA results until 30 days after surgery in order to provide the most unbiased assessment of its prognostic capabilities.The only exception will be the presence of a left main stenosis >50%.This approach is supported by best available current evidence that, excluding left main disease, prophylatic revascularisation prior to non-cardiac surgery does not improve outcomes.An external safety and monitoring committee is overseeing the study and will review outcome data at regular intervals.Publications describing the results of the study will be submitted to major peer-reviewed journals and presented at international medical conferences.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine)Same topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207