MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006647527 · doi:10.1163/156856202320253974

Cardiopulmonary bypass technology transfer: musings of a cardiac surgeon

2002· review· en· W2006647527 on OpenAlexaff
Fraser D. Rubens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomaterials Science Polymer Edition · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTerumoBadan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional
KeywordsCardiopulmonary bypassHeparinBiomaterialBiocompatible materialMedicineCardiac surgeryCirculatory systemBiomedical engineeringIntensive care medicineSurgeryCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) has been one of the greatest technical advancements in cardiovascular medicine. With heparin anticoagulation, this device can safely replace the circulatory and gas-exchanging functions of the heart and lung, facilitating complex cardiac operations. Limitations still exist however, related to blood reactions at the biomaterial surface, such as cell activation, inflammation and low-grade thrombosis. In this brief review, the thought processes which paralleled the development of CPB biocompatible surfaces such as heparin-coating, will be explored, as well as current theories on the suspected mechanisms by which heparin-coated surfaces act as an anti-inflammatory device during CPB. Results with new surfaces for CPB designed to capitalize on superior protein adsorption properties, such as surface modifying additive (SMA) and poly (2-methoxyethylacrylate) (PMEA), will also be described. Finally, the significance of biomaterial-independent blood activation will be discussed, emphasizing the current need to develop strategies utilizing optimal biomaterials, modified surgical technique and pharmacologic therapy to minimize the systemic complications of CPB.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomaterials Science Polymer EditionSame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207