MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W103045048

Left ventricular assist device: can Canada afford this?

2005· article· en· W103045048 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBridge to transplantationHeart failureHeart transplantationEconomic shortageTransplantationVentricular assist deviceDestination therapyIntensive care medicineCardiologyPopulationCirculatory systemIncidence (geometry)Internal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart transplantation remains a limited option in the treatment of patients with end-stage heart failure because of the shortage of donors and the high incidence of heart failure disease in the Canadian population. The current use of mechanical circulatory support systems is directed primarily at patients at imminent risk of death who are temporarily supported as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. Newer left ventricular assist devices, namely, the axial and centrifugal flow pumps, are smarter and more compact devices. Although used as bridge to transplantation, these devices are now seriously considered to become an option in the chronic treatment of patients with severe and unresponsive congestive heart failure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207