MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W924003790 · doi:10.1253/circj.cj-11-1427

Assessment of Cardiac Computed TomographyMyocardial Perfusion Imaging

2012· review· en· W924003790 on OpenAlexafffund
Girish Dwivedi, Taylor F. Dowsley, Benjamin J.W. Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Journal · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDowager Countess Eleanor Peel Trust
KeywordsPerfusionCoronary artery diseaseMyocardial perfusion imagingMedicineModality (human–computer interaction)Perfusion scanningRadiologyCardiac imagingFunctional imagingCardiologyNuclear medicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac computed tomography (CT) has evolved rapidly over the last decade into a reliable imaging modality for the non-invasive assessment of coronary artery disease. With the advancement in multi-detector CT technology, there has developed an increasing body of evidence that suggests that the role of cardiac CT can be extended to include functional assessment of the myocardium not only at rest but also during stress. Simultaneous anatomical and functional assessment approaches will have a number of advantages such as evaluation of the transmural extent of myocardial perfusion defects (including small subendocardial perfusion defects), reduced risk associated with multiple sources of radiation, and short image acquisition time. Although initial results hold some promise, CT myocardial perfusion imaging is a modality in the early stages of development and further work and studies are required to define, validate, and optimize this technique. This review will provide an overview of this novel perfusion imaging method, its underlying principles, evolution, limitations and future directions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation JournalSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207