MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322309916 · doi:10.1177/0267659115584785

Lessons from aviation - the role of checklists in minimally invasive cardiac surgery

2015· article· en· W2322309916 on OpenAlexaff
S Hussain, Corey Adams, A. Cleland, PM Jones, G. Walsh, Bob Kiaii

Bibliographic record

VenuePerfusion · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChecklistAviationPatient safetyMedical emergencyCardiac surgeryAdverse effectIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe an adverse event during minimally invasive cardiac surgery that resulted in a multi-disciplinary review of intra-operative errors and the creation of a procedural checklist. This checklist aims to prevent errors of omission and communication failures that result in increased morbidity and mortality. We discuss the application of the aviation - led "threats and errors model" to medical practice and the role of checklists and other strategies aimed at reducing medical errors.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0110.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerfusionSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207