Bibliographic record
Abstract
Please see the article by Christen et al. (doi: 10.1016/j.euje.2005.08.002 ) to which this editorial pertains. In 2004, an estimated 2000–3000 patients underwent percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO). Given the range of potential indications (such as prevention of cryptogenic stroke, decompression illness in divers, platypnea–orthodeoxia syndrome, and migraine headaches) and the perception of PFO closure being an easy and safe procedure,1 the number of patients with percutaneously implanted PFO closure devices will continue to grow. The first attempt to percutaneously close an interatrial defect was undertaken in 1974 and reported by King and colleagues in 1976.2 In the following years, several different devices were developed and re-modified to facilitate this technique. It began with the Clamshell occluder from Rashkind,3 later modified into the CardioSEAL and then the StarFLEX device. Other models soon followed including the Buttoned device,4 the ASDOS device,5 the Monodisk,6 the Angel-Wings device,7 the Amplatzer ASD occluder8 and the Helex device.9 Although these devices were initially intended for atrial septal defect closure, they could also be used for closure of PFO, an idea first evoked by Bridges in 1992.10 Soon thereafter, devices dedicated exclusively for percutaneous PFO closure entered the market, namely the Amplatzer PFO occluder and the PFOStar (now Cardiastar) device. Part of the reasoning to favour percutaneous PFO closure over open heart surgery promises a safer and of course, less …
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".