MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075417223 · doi:10.1016/j.healun.2009.07.021

The Evolution of Infant Heart Transplantation

2009· article· en· W2075417223 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leonard L. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransplantationHeart transplantationMedicineHuman heartGeneral surgeryDozenInterimSurgeryInternal medicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human heart transplantation! Incredible idea! The sort of moonshot that inhabited the dreams of 1950s- and 1960s-era cardiac surgeons worldwide. Perhaps as many as two dozen or more centers were actually experimenting with the concept, and the science was becoming irrepressible. By the 1960s, heart transplantation (HTx) had become a virtual obsession in the cardiac surgical laboratory at Stanford University.1 There, under the direction of Norman Shumway and Richard Lower, the operative procedure in experimental animals had become second nature.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Heart and Lung TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207