JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE 5:101-111, 1964 Measurement of Pericardial Fluid Correlated with the I'31-Cholografin®and IHSA Heart Scan1'2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
radioisotope heart scan has become established as a safe, simple, and useful technique for the diagnosis of pericardial effusion (2,3,4,8). Nevertheless, few studies have been reported concerning quantitative aspects of the method. Early in 1961, the Radioisotope Laboratory of the Albert Einstein Medical Center, Northern Division, instituted a program in conjunction with the Division of Cardiac Surgery designed to evaluate the cardiac photoscan in patients under going open-heart surgery. It was proposed that a preoperative heart scan be per formed and the pericardial contents aspirated and measured in all such patients, and that criteria for heart scanning be established from these figures. To date, 23 operated patients have been so studied. In addition, data was available from post-mortem examination in six other patients, and five patients with pericardial effusion underwent diagnostic pericardiocentesis. An aditional three patients had massive pericardial effusions but were not tapped; these pa tients are also included in the series. Twenty-five other patients with cardiac dis ease, some with pericarditis, are not included in this study because pericardiocen tesis was not performed. ‘Presentedatthe 10thAnnual Meeting,Societyof NuclearMedicine,Montreal,Canada,
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".