MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060322424 · doi:10.1177/1089253207311160

Surgical, Anesthetic, Perfusion-Related Advances in Minimal Access Surgery

2007· review· en· W2060322424 on OpenAlexaff
Bob Kiaii, Daniel Bainbridge, Philip Fernandes

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary bypassCardiac surgeryMedian sternotomyAnestheticMinimally invasive cardiac surgerySurgical proceduresSurgeryAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As we enter the fifth decade in cardiac surgery, traditionally cardiac surgery has been performed using a median sternotomy with cardiopulmonary bypass providing great access to the heart and all the surrounding structures. During the last decade, there has been a paradigm shift in the methods by which surgery has been performed. The invasiveness of many procedures has been dramatically reduced, with significantly superior outcomes, as evidenced by improved survival, fewer complications, and quicker return to functional health and productive life. This resulted in significant interest and excitement in adopting less invasive techniques in cardiac surgery. Unfortunately, this was an unrealistic expectation due to the limitations that existed in cardiac surgical techniques and conventional endoscopic instruments, cardiac anesthesia, and cardiopulmonary bypass techniques. In this article, the advances in minimally invasive surgical, cardiac anesthesia, and cardiopulmonary bypass techniques in the evolution of minimal access cardiac surgery are summarized.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular AnesthesiaSame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207