Comparison between traditional and goal directed perfusion in cardiopulmonary by-pass. Adaptation of a differential cost analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A previous patient-level discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed to perform an economic evaluation of GDP strategy with respect to TP in US. Aim of this supplement is provide results of the adaptations of the differential cost analysis to Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and UK. METHODS: A Discrete Event Simulation model was developed to compare TP and GDP strategy in patients undergoing CPB. National perspective was adopted to calculate costs associated to each event while GDP strategy was exploited the introduction of Sorin Heartlink (HL) Card/GDP Card and Sorin Connect (electronic data management system). RESULTS: GDP reduces the total cost with respect to traditional perfusion; furthermore the cost of GDP strategy (Sorin GDPTM Monitor and Sorin ConnectTM) is completely offset by the saving in hospital stay. CONCLUSION: GDP seems to improve significantly the main outcomes related to CPB surgery, when compared to TP techniques. Additional costs due to perform GDP strategy have no impact on the total cost since completely offset by the savings in hospital cost.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".