MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170883633 · doi:10.1017/s1047951110001150

Unnatural history of the right ventricle in patients with congenitally malformed hearts

2010· review· en· W2170883633 on OpenAlexaff
Leo Lopez, Meryl S. Cohen, Robert H. Anderson, Andrew N. Redington, David Nykanen, Daniel J. Penny, John Deanfield, Benjamin W. Eidem

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology in the Young · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyVentricleInternal medicineTetralogy of FallotAfterloadRegurgitation (circulation)HemodynamicsPulmonary valve stenosisVolume overloadGreat arteriesPulmonary hypertensionHeart failureStenosisHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The long-term outcome of patients with congenitally malformed hearts involving abnormal right ventricular morphology and haemodynamics is variable. In most instances, the patients are at risk for right ventricular failure, in part due to morphological differences between the right and left ventricles and their response to chronic volume and pressure overload. In patients after repair of tetralogy of Fallot, and after balloon valvotomy for valvar pulmonary stenosis, pulmonary regurgitation is the most significant risk factor for right ventricular dysfunction. In patients with a dominant right ventricle after Fontan palliation, and in those with systemic right ventricles in association with surgically or congenitally corrected transposition, the right ventricle is not morphologically capable of dealing with chronic exposure to the high afterload of the systemic circulation. In patients with Ebstein's malformation of the tricuspid valve, the degree of atrialisation of the right ventricle determines how well the right ventricle will function as the pump for the pulmonary vascular bed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology in the YoungSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207