MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409061225 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1569998

Perpetual and Virtual Patients for Cardiorespiratory Physiological Studies

2015· review· en· W2409061225 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Intensive Care · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineInformaticsRisk analysis (engineering)Computational modelReliability (semiconductor)Intensive care medicineClinical PracticeFidelityComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of innovations in informatics over the last decades, physiologic models elaborated in the second half of the 20th century could be transformed into specific virtual patients called computational models. These models, developed initially for teaching purposes, are of great potential interest in responding to current concerns about improving patient care and safety. However, even if there are obvious advantages to using computational models in cardiorespiratory management, major concerns persist as to their reliability and their ability to recreate real patient physiologic evolution over time. Once developed, these models require complex validation and configuration phases prior to implementation in daily practice. This article focuses on the development of computational models, and reviews the methodologies to clinically validate the models including specific patient databases (perpetual patients) and the use in clinical practice including very high fidelity simulation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.275 · 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