MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102318762 · doi:10.1007/s00134-014-3242-7

International guideline development for the determination of death

2014· article· en· W2102318762 on OpenAlexafffund
Sam D. Shemie, Laura Hornby, Andrew Baker, Jeanne Teitelbaum, Sylvia Torrance, Kimberly Young, Alexander Morgan Capron, James L. Bernat, Luc Noël

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCanadian Blood ServicesMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Blood Services
KeywordsMedicinePain medicineAnesthesiologyGuidelineIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND METHODS: This report summarizes the results of the first phase in the development of international guidelines for death determination, focusing on the biology of death and the dying process, developed by an invitational forum of international content experts and representatives of a number of professional societies. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Precise terminology was developed in order to improve clarity in death discussion and debate. Critical events in the physiological sequences leading to cessation of neurological and/or circulatory function were constructed. It was agreed that death determination is primarily clinical and recommendations for preconditions, confounding factors, minimum clinical standards and additional testing were made. A single operational definition of human death was developed: 'the permanent loss of capacity for consciousness and all brainstem functions, as a consequence of permanent cessation of circulation or catastrophic brain injury'. In order to complete the project, in the next phase, a broader group of international stakeholders will develop clinical practice guidelines, based on comprehensive reviews and grading of the existing evidence.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0140.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0100.006
Research integrity0.0130.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.008

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations272
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care MedicineSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207