MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140394331 · doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.03.002

Multisociety (AATS, ACCF, SCAI, and STS) expert consensus statement: Operator and institutional requirements for transcatheter valve repair and replacement, part 1: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement

2012· review· en· W2140394331 on OpenAlexaff
Carl L. Tommaso, R. Morton Bolman, Ted Feldman, Joseph E. Bavaria, Michael A. Acker, Gabriel S. Aldea, Duke E. Cameron, Larry S. Dean, Dave Fullerton, Ziyad M. Hijazi, Eric Horlick, D. Craig Miller, Marc R. Moon, Richard Ringel, Carlos E. Ruiz, Alfredo Trento, Bonnie H. Weiner, Evan M. Zahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
FundersFood and Drug AdministrationNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAccreditationValve replacementMission statementCommissionCompetence (human resources)Consensus conferenceHealth careMedical educationPublic relationsCardiologyManagementLawInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The granting of staff privileges to physicians is an important mechanism to ensure quality care. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations requires that medical staff privileges be based on professional criteria specified in medical staff bylaws. Physicians are charged with defining the criteria that constitute professional competence and with evaluating their peers accordingly. With the evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), an important opportunity arises for both cardiologists and surgeons to come together to identify the criteria for performing these procedures.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.308 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgerySame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207