MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Explantation of a Mechanical Assist Device:. Assessment of Myocardial Recovery

2004· article· en· W1540305987 on OpenAlex
Diego Delgado, Vivek Rao, Santiago Miriuka, Abdurrahman Al-Hesayen, Jane McIver, Christopher M. Feindel, Robert J. Cusimano, Heather J. Ross

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiac Surgery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricular assist deviceCardiologyDobutamineHemodynamicsMyocarditisHeart failureInternal medicineRefractory (planetary science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reliable predictors of myocardial recovery post-mechanical assist device implantation are not well defined. We report the case of a 29-year-old woman with refractory congestive heart failure due to acute myocarditis of unknown etiology. The patient was supported with a HeartMate (Thoratec Corp., Woburn, MI) left ventricular assist device for 100 days showing improvement in clinical status. Hemodynamic monitoring, dobutamine stress echocardiography, and cardiopulmonary testing were performed to identify myocardial recovery. Improvements in myocardial reserve, hemodynamic parameters, and myocardial oxygen consumption were identified prior to explantation. The patient was successfully explanted. This case confirms that myocardial recovery is feasible with the use of a mechanical assist device. This article describes our current left ventricular assist device weaning protocol.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.277 · 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