MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159305613 · doi:10.1586/erc.09.38

Risk stratification in surgically repaired tetralogy of Fallot

2009· review· en· W2159305613 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Khairy, Annie Dore, Nancy Poirier, François Marcotte, Réda Ibrahim, François‐Pierre Mongeon, Lise‐Andrée Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTetralogy of FallotRisk stratificationCardiologyInternal medicineStratification (seeds)Heart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tetralogy of Fallot is the most common form of congenital heart disease in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients. Indeed, sudden death of presumed arrhythmic etiology is the most frequent mode of demise in patients with surgically repaired tetralogy of Fallot, often in early-to-mid adulthood. Nevertheless, the overall annual incidence of sudden death is actually low. Therein lies the major challenge of risk stratification. This review highlights some of the complexities involved in risk stratifying patients with tetralogy of Fallot, underscoring the importance of avoiding oversimplification by means of a rigid algorithm that dictates therapy. To complement sound clinical judgment, a quantitative probabilistic approach is presented, which considers the body of literature from primary prevention ICD trials, risk factors identified by observational studies, the value of programmed ventricular stimulation and insights gleaned from studying ICD recipients with tetralogy of Fallot.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations93
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207