MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2225153511 · doi:10.1177/2150135115614576

Training Pathways in Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care

2015· review· en· W2225153511 on OpenAlexaff
Vijay Anand, David M. Kwiatkowski, Nancy S. Ghanayem, David M. Axelrod, James A. DiNardo, Darren Klugman, Ganga Krishnamurthy, Stephanie L. Siehr, Daniel Stromberg, Andrew R. Yates, Stephen J. Roth, David S. Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensivistMedicineCredentialingIntensive careAnesthesiologyIntensive care medicineCardiac surgeryMedical educationCardiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increase in pediatric cardiac surgical procedures and establishment of the practice of pediatric cardiac intensive care has created the need for physicians with advanced and specialized knowledge and training. Current training pathways to become a pediatric cardiac intensivist have a great deal of variability and have unique strengths and weaknesses with influences from critical care, cardiology, neonatology, anesthesiology, and cardiac surgery. Such variability has created much confusion among trainees looking to pursue a career in our specialized field. This is a report with perspectives from the most common advanced fellowship training pathways taken to become a pediatric cardiac intensivist as well as various related topics including scholarship, qualifications, and credentialing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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