MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7026279725

ACC/AHA/ASE 2003 Guideline Update for the Clinical Application of Echocardiography: Summary Article: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart\nAssociation Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASE Committee to Update the 1997 Guidelines for the Clinical Application of Echocardiography)

2003· article· en· W7026279725 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCarolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineTask forceClinical PracticeEvidence-based medicineEvidence-based practiceHeart failureCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyScientific evidence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"The previous guideline for the use of echocardiography was published in March 1997. Since that time, there have been significant advances in the technology of echocardiography and growth in its clinical use and in the scientific evidence leading to recommendations for its proper use. Each section has been reviewed and updated in evidence tables, and where appropriate, changes have been made in recommendations. A new section on the use of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is being added to update the guidelines published by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. There are extensive revisions, especially of the sections on ischemic heart disease; congestive heart failure, cardiomyopathy, and assessment of left ventricular (LV) function; and screening and echocardiography in the critically ill. There are new tables of evidence and extensive revisions in the ischemic heart disease evidence tables. Because of space limitations, only those sections and evidence tables with new recommendations will be printed in this summary article. Where there are minimal changes in a recommendation grouping, such as a change from Class IIa to Class I, only that change will be printed, not the entire set of recommendations. Advances for which the clinical applications are still being investigated, such as the use of myocardial contrast agents and three-dimensional echocardiography, will not be discussed."

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.010

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)Same topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207