MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039927217 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2014.06.011

Rationale and Design of the Canadian Outcomes Registry Late After Tetralogy of Fallot Repair: The CORRELATE Study

2014· article· en· W2039927217 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Rachel M. Wald, Mustafa A. Altaha, Nanette Alvarez, Christopher A. Caldarone, Tíscar Cavallé-Garrido, Frédéric Dallaire, Christian Drolet, Jasmine Grewal, Camille L. Hancock Friesen, Derek G. Human, Edward Hickey, Camilla Kayedpour, Paul Khairy, Adrienne H. Kovacs, Gerald Lebovic, Brian W. McCrindle, Syed Najaf Nadeem, David J. Patton, Andrew N. Redington, Candice K. Silversides, Edythe Tham, Judith Therrien, Andrew E. Warren, Bernd J. Wintersperger, Isabelle Vonder Muhll, Michael E. Farkouh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of CalgaryQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreJewish General HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalBC Children's HospitalUniversité LavalStollery Children's HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreSt. Paul's HospitalMontreal Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill UniversityUniversity Health NetworkSickKids FoundationMontreal Heart InstituteCalgary General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de MontréalHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineTetralogy of FallotInternal medicineCardiologyHeart failureVentricular tachycardiaAsymptomaticCardiac magnetic resonance imagingHeart diseasePulmonary hypertensionMagnetic resonance imagingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CardiologySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207