William Osler, Maude Abbott, Paul Dudley White, and Helen Taussig: The Origins of Congenital Heart Disease in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1965, Helen Taussig traced the evolution of knowledge of congenital heart disease (CHD) during the 20th century, beginning with the William Osler-Maude Abbott lineage at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Osler encouraged Abbott in her CHD pathologic observations. Abbott's London Exhibit (1934) preceded her classic text Atlas of Congenital Cardiac Disease (1936). Taussig's friendship with Abbott (1935) began in Boston; Abbott brought Taussig to meet Paul Dudley White whose text Heart Disease (1931) featured Abbott's work. Taussig visited Abbott (Montreal 1938). Abbott's statistical approach was based on post-mortem malformations; Taussig's concern was why CHD babies died. Abbott (1927) suggested surgery for a patent ductus arteriosus; Taussig conceived of creating a patent ductus arteriosus shunt to improve lung blood flow in cyanotic "blue babies". Surgeon Alfred Blalock and Taussig collaborated with the blue baby shunt operations (1944-1945), opening the field of cardiac surgery in cyanotic babies. Taussig's Congenital Malformations of the Heart text came 2 years later. Sequential contributions by Osler, Abbott, White, and Taussig were landmarks in the evolution of knowledge of CHD in North America.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".