MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient Selection for Left Ventricular Assist Devices

2004· review· en· W2068330794 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Mielniczuk, Tofy Mussivand, Ross A. Davies, Thierry Mesana, Roy G. Masters, Paul Hendry, Wilbert J. Keon, Haissam Haddad

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Organs · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBridge to transplantationVentricular assist deviceDestination therapyTransplantationIntensive care medicinePopulationArtificial heartStandard of careBridge (graph theory)Heart transplantationHeart failureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of mechanical support as a bridge to cardiac transplant has become the standard of care in many cardiac transplant centers. This therapy has been shown to increase survival and improve morbidity in carefully selected patients waiting for heart transplantation. With approximately 30000 patients being listed worldwide for transplant every year and only 3500 transplantations performed annually, alternative strategies need to be developed to minimize morbidity and mortality in this high-risk population. Patient selection remains the primary determinant of success with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. This article will review both the cardiac and extracardiac considerations needed in the assessment of patient suitability for LVAD support as a bridge to transplantation.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations33
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial OrgansSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207