MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2407030910

Canadian Cardiovascular Society Consensus Conference 2002: Management of heart disease in the elderly patient.

2004· article· en· W2407030910 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Fitchett, Kenneth Rockwood, Benjamin T.B. Chan, Susan Schultz, Peter Bogaty, Anne M. Gillis, Malcolm Arnold, Fraser Miller, Michelle M. Graham, William A. Ghali, Raymond Cartier, Chi-Ming Chow, Ruby Grymonpre, Richard I. Ogilvie, Paula A. Rochon, Joel Niznick, Steven A. Grover, Terry Kavanah, Jean Triscott, William Dafoe, Neil McCartney, Paddy Rodney, Jonathan G. Howlett, Anand Chockalingam, Gilles R. Dagenais, William Dalziel, George Fodor, Sam Goodman, Clare Kerr, Brad Power, Kelley Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyComorbidityConsensus conferenceIntensive care medicineDiseaseQuality of life (healthcare)Disease managementHeart failureHeart diseaseGerontologyAlternative medicinePsychiatryNursingPathologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular disease is a major health issue for the elderly patient. Many diagnostic, therapeutic and ethical issues are specific for the the older adult with heart disease. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society 2002 Consensus Conference provides recommendations for the most frequently encountered cardiac problems in the elderly patient. A common theme of the recommendations is the need to apply the best evidence based medicine together with an assessment of frailty, comorbidity and quality of life. A major goal of the conference was to identify treatments that are not optimally used in the older patient.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0110.003
Research integrity0.0140.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→