MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092240508 · doi:10.1177/1089253209338076

Lessons Learned in Antifibrinolytic Therapy: The BART Trial

2009· article· en· W2092240508 on OpenAlex
John M. Murkin

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 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntifibrinolyticIntensive care medicineTranexamic acidSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite nearly 2 decades of published reports and clinical trials demonstrating the relative safety and efficacy of aprotinin in adult cardiac surgical patients at increased risk of bleeding-culminating in an official endorsement of the usage of aprotinin in such patients from both cardiac surgery and anesthesiology subspecialty committees-several more recent studies have raised profound concerns regarding the safety of aprotinin in these same patients. These studies and the implications thereof have ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of aprotinin from clinical usage internationally. This article will briefly review these developments with the hope of understanding how this abrupt turnabout took place and will attempt to understand how such events can be avoided in the future.

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)0.001
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 score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.292 · 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