MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287148193 · doi:10.3399/bjgp16x684181

Detecting heart valve disease: can we do better?

2016· article· en· W2287148193 on OpenAlexaff
Jane Draper, John B. Chambers

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is not widely known that valve disease is as common as heart failure, with a prevalence of 2.5% in the general population and over 10% in those aged >75.1 There are many well-established national programmes for heart failure yet none exist for valve disease, which can justifiably be regarded as the ‘next cardiac epidemic waiting to happen’.2 There are many limitations in our care for heart valve disease. Most patients are still cared for by general physicians or GPs without specialist expertise despite management decisions becoming increasingly complex.3 One-half of patients throughout Europe receive surgery too late.4 The situation is particularly poor for older people, at least 30% of whom are not referred even when clinically indicated.3 There is unacceptable variation in access to aortic valve surgery in the UK,5 particularly in London where Camden has observed activity 47% above age-predicted rates and Brent has activity 40% below age-predicted rates. These limitations have led to a call for specialist valve clinics.3,6 These are expected to improve the assessment of valve disease and the timing of surgery, and to ensure referral to an appropriately qualified and …

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.019
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0130.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.020

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of General PracticeSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207