Heart Transplantation at the Ottawa Heart Institute: Comparison with Canadian and International Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart transplantation has been carried out in 340 patients in Ottawa, including seventy-one who required mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to transplant. Survival in Ottawa was compared with other Canadian centers based on data from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register up to the year 2000 and with the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) registry 2001. For survival analysis, the number of adult patients at risk at year 0 was 303 (87 transplanted from 1985 to 1990, 105 from 1990 to 1994, and 111 from 1995 to 2000). The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) life test procedure was used. Survival was not adjusted for comorbidities or heart failure class. For the year of transplant 1985-1989, one-, five-, and ten-year patient survival in Ottawa was 83%, 70%, and 60%, respectively, compared to 82%, 71%, and 54%, respectively, for Canada (Wilcoxon test, P = 0.71), and compared to one- and five-year survival for ISHLT from 1980 to 1987 at 76% and 60%, respectively. For 1990-1994, one-, five-, and ten-year patient survival in Ottawa was 88%, 81%, and 74%, respectively, compared to 80%, 71%, and 61%, respectively, for Canada (P = 0.05), and compared to one- and five-year survival for ISHLT from 1998 to 1992 at 80% and 68%, respectively. For 1995-2000, one- and five-year patient survival in Ottawa was 90% and 82%, respectively, compared to 85% and 76%, respectively, for Canada (P = 0.09), and compared to one- and five-year survival for ISHLT from 1993 to 1996 at 82% and 68%, respectively. Survival after heart transplantation in Ottawa compares favorably with Canadian and international data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".