MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968471961 · doi:10.1586/erc.12.87

A review of the current status of pericardial closure following cardiac surgery

2012· review· en· W1968471961 on OpenAlex

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

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePericardiumClosure (psychology)Cardiac surgeryClinical PracticePericardial effusionSurgeryIntensive care medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some cardiac surgeons prefer to close the pericardium whenever possible following surgery, others specifically avoid this practice, and still others believe that neither alternative has any meaningful influence on clinical outcomes. Unfortunately, scientific evidence supporting either approach is scarce, making a consensus regarding best practice impossible. In this article, the known functions of the native intact pericardium are summarized, and the arguments for and against pericardial closure after surgery are examined. In addition, the techniques and materials that have been utilized for pericardial closure previously, as well as those that are currently being developed, are assessed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.075
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.307 · 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