MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070649525 · doi:10.1177/1089253208323681

Risk Stratification Models for Cardiac Surgery

2008· review· en· W2070649525 on OpenAlex
Jeff Granton, Davy Cheng

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

VenueSeminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRisk stratificationCardiac surgeryRisk assessmentIntensive care medicineCardiothoracic surgeryRisk modelEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicineRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wide variety of risk stratification systems have been developed to quantify the risk of cardiac surgery. Generally, the focus has been on mortality; however, more recently models have been developed that allow the preoperative prediction of the incidence of morbidity, including renal failure, infection, prolonged ventilation, and neurologic deficit. Many of these risk stratification models are developed from large databases of cardiac surgical patients. Patient and surgical factors that are present preoperatively are assessed for their predictive value for postoperative complications. Risk factors that are found to be significant are assigned a specific weight in the overall summation of risk. These models have been used as tools to compare surgeon's results, institutional outcomes, individual patient risk, and within quality improvement programs. This article will focus on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, the Parsonnet score, Cleveland Clinic Model, the Bayes model, and the Northern New England Score.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.283 · 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