MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2252440637 · doi:10.1002/cce2.2

Rationale and indications for coronary chronic total occlusion interventions

2015· article· en· W2252440637 on OpenAlexaff
Minh Vo, Stéphane Rinfret

Bibliographic record

VenueContinuing Cardiology Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversité LavalSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventional PCIMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionCoronary artery diseaseRevascularizationPsychological interventionCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary occlusionIntensive care medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chronic total occlusions (CTOs) are commonly found in patients with coronary artery disease and are considered the “final frontier” of coronary intervention. Despite growing interest in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of CTOs along with advances in techniques and equipment, attempt rates remain low. This is most likely due to the fact that CTO PCI remains technically challenging and requires higher resource utilization. Furthermore, there remains controversy regarding the actual clinical benefit of successful CTO PCI. However, there have been a growing number of studies reporting short‐ and long‐term outcomes of CTO revascularization. We therefore sought to review the evidence and potential clinical benefits of successful CTO PCI. Answer questions and earn CME: https://www.wileyhealthlearning.com/Activity2/3691380/Activity.aspx

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.006

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContinuing Cardiology EducationSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207