MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100818565 · doi:10.4081/cp.2011.e38

Survival Post Surgery for Malignant Pericardial Effusion

2011· article· en· W2100818565 on OpenAlex
Olivier Nguyen, Denise Ouellette

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

VenueClinics and Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPericarditis and Cardiac Tamponade
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePericardial effusionPericardial windowMalignancySurgeryPericardiumEffusionLung cancerSurvival rateRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study reviews the survival of patients with malignant pericardial effusion treated with a subxiphoid pericardial window. The medical records of 60 consecutive patients diagnosed with a malignant pericardial effusion and treated with a subxiphoid pericardial window between 1994 and 2008 were reviewed. 72% had lung cancer. Overall 30-day mortality was 31%. Survival rates at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 45%, 28%, 17%, and 9%, respectively. Overall median survival was 2.6 months. Patients with malignant pericardial effusion, especially those with primary lung cancer have poor survival rates. In advanced malignancy, the subxiphoid pericardial window procedure provides only short-term palliation of symptoms, and has no effect on long-term survival. The use of any surgical procedure in patients with malignant advanced pericardial effusion should be considered along with non-surgical options on a case-by-case basis depending on symptoms, general status, and expected survival.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.261 · 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