MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improved Early Survival with the Total Artificial Heart

2004· article· en· W2024640170 on OpenAlex
Michel Haddad, Roy G. Masters, Paul Hendry, Thierry Mesana, Haissam Haddad, Ross A. Davies, Tofy Mussivand, Christine Struthers, Wilbert J. Keon

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

VenueArtificial Organs · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArtificial heartRehabilitationSurgeryHeart transplantationGroup BTransplantationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report our experience with the total artificial heart (TAH) to determine if outcomes have improved. Thirty-one patients received the TAH as a bridge to transplant and were divided into the two groups A (eighteen implanted in the first eight years) and B (thirteen implanted in the last eight years). Changes in management included immediate sternal closure, early extubation, delayed transplant listing, early rehabilitation, and measurement of preformed antibodies. The infection rate in B was lower than in A, both during support (31% versus 39%) and following transplant (38% versus 72%), and rejection was lower in B than in A (0% versus 44%). There was no difference in neurological events between groups; however, reopening was more frequent in B (61% versus 28%). Hospital survival increased from 61% in A to 85% in B; however, this was not statistically significant. We hypothesize that this improvement was likely due to changes in patient management.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.264 · 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