Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ventricular assist devices (VAD) are mechanical pumps implanted into patients with advanced heart failure who are at risk of imminent death. VADs are a treatment and not a cure, and mortality on device support remains high. Recognizing the dire nature of the decisions for patients and families and the associated high mortality rates, we actively included processes for device withdrawal as part of our program mandate. METHODS: At Toronto General Hospital, from October 2001 to December 2004, 22 patients underwent implantation of a VAD. Seven patients died following device withdrawal. RESULTS: The average time spent on support prior to device withdrawal was seven days. In four of the seven cases, family members initiated discussions regarding device withdrawal. Family-initiated discussions were more likely to occur if patients were implanted electively, as a bridge to transplantation. Disagreements occurred between the ICU and the transplant teams regarding the timing of device withdrawal and responsibility for stopping the pump. DISCUSSION: Establishing a process for device withdrawal has been a key factor in the success of our VAD program. This process relies heavily on pre-implantation preparation, a strategy for resolving disagreements, and a process for withdrawing device support.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".