MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149868205 · doi:10.1016/s1010-7940(00)00463-2

Presentation of the International Nomenclature for Congenital Heart Surgery. The long way from nomenclature to collection of validated data at the EACTS

2000· article· en· W2149868205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
François Lacour-Gayet

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomenclatureMedicineScrutinyPresentation (obstetrics)Family medicineGeneral surgeryMedical emergencyPediatricsSurgeryLawPolitical scienceTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An International Nomenclature for Congenital Heart Surgery was officially adopted at the Annual Meeting of the EACTS in Glasgow, UK on September 6, 1999. This nomenclature was achieved following 1 year's work of the International Nomenclature and Data Base Committee for Congenital Heart Surgery of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. This international group included members from the STS, AATS, AHA and EACTS and associated surgeons and cardiologists from United States, Canada, Australia and Europe. The Nomenclature includes a minimal data set of 21 items and lists of 150 diagnoses, 200 procedures, 32 complications and 28 extra cardiac anomalies and preoperative risk factors. It will serve as a basis for the Pediatric European Cardiac Surgical Registry (http://www.pediatric. ecsur.org). The outcome of such an International Nomenclature represents an important event for the medical community in charge of treating patients with congenital heart diseases. It will allow scientific exchanges on an international scale and promote multicenter evaluation of congenital heart surgery. Nevertheless, this Nomenclature is only the first step. Further collection of validated data at the Pediatric ECSUR Data Base requires ethical belief, time consumption and financial resources. Comparison of results, according to pathologies, across centers and countries will help define, in the future, official European standards of Quality of Care available for health care organizations, public scrutiny and governmental agencies.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0040.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.315
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

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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations70
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207