MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073145088 · doi:10.1177/021849230100900307

Surgical Closure of Secundum Atrial Septal Defects: The Cutting Edge?

2001· article· en· W2073145088 on OpenAlexaff
Jacques G. LeBlanc, Jennifer Russell, James E. Potts, Margaret L Deagle, Suvro Sett

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeptum secundumSurgeryAtrial flutterSinus rhythmAtrioventricular blockCardiopulmonary bypassShunt (medical)CardiologyInternal medicineAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between January 1985 and November 1998, 270 patients (aged 2 to 220 months) underwent surgical closure of a secundum atrial septal defect. Cardiopulmonary bypass times ranged from 12 to 103 minutes, with aortic crossclamp times of 5 to 49 minutes. Use of blood products decreased from 2.7 units per patient in the first 5 years to 0.2 units in the last 4 years. Median intensive care unit and hospital stays were 2 days and 6 days, respectively. Complications included: bleeding in 6 patients (2%), which required reexploration in 3; air embolism in 1; and arrhythmias in 4. Postpericardiotomy syndrome occurred in 43 patients (16%), requiring drainage in 5. Follow-up (12 to 179 months) was available in 245 patients (91%). There were no early or late deaths. Most patients (94%) were in sinus rhythm, 8 had low atrial rhythm, 3 had first-degree atrioventricular block, and 1 had atrial flutter. Echocardiography in 207 patients (77%) demonstrated a residual shunt in 1 (0.5%), which was hemodynamically insignificant. Late reoperation was required in 4 patients for sternal nonunion. Surgical closure of secundum atrial septal defect remains the gold standard with which transcatheter closure should be compared, particularly with reference to morbidity and residual shunts.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Cardiovascular and Thoracic AnnalsSame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207