MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079175729 · doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.06.016

Erratum to “Management options in neonates and infants with critical left ventricular outflow tract obstruction” [Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 31 (6) (2007) 1013–1021]

2007· erratum· en· W2079175729 on OpenAlexaff
Bahaaldin Alsoufi, Tara Karamlou, Brian W. McCrindle, Christopher A. Caldarone

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2007
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentricular outflow tract obstructionMedicineOutflowCardiologyPhysicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The publisher regrets that in the above article the word percutaneous was incorrectly spelled. The paragraphs containing the errors are reprinted below. Before the development of percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty, surgical valvotomy was the mainstay of treatment of critical aortic stenosis in neonates and infants. Different approaches such as trans-ventricular closed aortic valvotomy, open valvotomy with inflow occlusion or with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) were developed [1,4,5,32–37]. With improved safety of CPB and myocardial protection, open valvotomy with CPB became the preferred technique by almost all surgeons. The advantage of open valvotomy is that it allows detailed examination of the valve and accurate valvotomy; the disadvantages include the surgical morbidity and increased complexity of future surgery due to redo sternotomy. Although percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty has replaced surgery to become the preferred technique in most centers, surgical valvotomy remains favored by some. Several risk factors for increased operative mortality have been identified including the presence of endocardial fibroelastosis, presence of hypoplastic left ventricle, or aortic annulus, presence of associated cardiovascular anomalies, extremely small neonates and earlier era surgery [2,5,33]. Since the first report of successful percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAVP) for aortic stenosis in infancy, this modality has become the favored technique in many institutions. Vascular access is usually obtained with an antegrade approach using the umbilical or the femoral arteries. However, retrograde approach using the carotid artery has been described [40,41]. In a report comparing retrograde and antegrade balloon aortic valvuloplasty, antegrade approach was associated with diminished morbidity compared with retrograde approach [40,41]. Advantages of percutaneous intervention include the avoidance of surgical morbidity associated with cardiopulmonary bypass. Disadvantages include vascular access complications, inability to precisely determine where the leaflets will tear and subsequent potential for aortic valve insufficiency, and rarely mitral valve injury [41]. It should be recognized that it is important not to overdilate the valve and that the goal is not complete elimination but improvement of the gradient until the patient is older and bigger, at which point the procedure can be repeated. The publisher apologizes for this oversight.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.016

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207