MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158650612 · doi:10.1093/ejechocard/jeq043

Recommendations for reporting perioperative transoesophageal echo studies

2010· article· en· W2158650612 on OpenAlexaff
R.O. Feneck, John Kneeshaw, Kevin Fox, Dominique Béttex, Joachim Erb, F. Flaschkampf, Fabio Guarracino, Marco Ranucci, Manfred D. Seeberger, Erik Sloth, H. Tschernich, Patrick Wouters, José Luis Zamorano

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Echocardiography · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeEcho (communications protocol)RadiologyGeneral surgeryMedical physicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every perioperative transoesophageal echo (TEE) study should generate a written report. A verbal report may be given at the time of the study. Important findings must be included in the written report. Where the perioperative TEE findings are new, or have led to a change in operative surgery, postoperative care or in prognosis, it is essential that this information should be reported in writing and available as soon as possible after surgery. The ultrasound technology and methodology used to assess valve pathology, ventricular performance and any other derived information should be included to support any conclusions. This is particularly important in the case of new or unexpected findings. Particular attention should be attached to the echo findings following the completion of surgery. Every written report should include a written conclusion, which should be comprehensible to physicians who are not experts in echocardiography.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of EchocardiographySame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207