MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170731146 · doi:10.1177/2150135110363024

Unbalanced Atrioventricular Septal Defect: Definition and Decision Making

2010· article· en· W2170731146 on OpenAlexaff
David M. Overman, Jeanne M. Baffa, Meryl S. Cohen, Luc Mertens, David B. Gremmels, Anusha Jegatheeswaran, Brian W. McCrindle, Eugene H. Blackstone, Victor O. Morell, Christopher A. Caldarone, William G. Williams, Christian Pizarro

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrioventricular Septal DefectAtrioventricular valveMedicineVentricleCardiologyInternal medicineClinical decision makingIntensive care medicineHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unbalanced atrioventricular septal defect is an uncommon lesion with widely varying anatomic manifestations. When unbalance is severe, diagnosis and treatment is straightforward, directed toward single-ventricle palliation. Milder forms, however, pose a challenge to current diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. The transition from anatomies that are capable of sustaining biventricular physiology to those that cannot is obscure, resulting in uneven application of surgical strategy and excess mortality. Imprecise assessments of ventricular competence have dominated clinical decision making in this regard. Malalignment of the atrioventricular junction and its attendant derangement of inflow physiology is a critical factor in determining the feasibility of biventricular repair in the setting of unbalanced atrioventricular septal defect. The atrioventricular valve index accurately identifies unbalanced atrioventricular septal defect and also brings into focus a zone of transition from anatomies that can support a biventricular end state and those that cannot.

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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart SurgerySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207