MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526750789

Het beschadigde hart: ondersteuning en herstel met het Impella-systeem

2010· article· nl· W2526750789 on OpenAlexaff
Annemarie E. Engström, Bas A.J.M. de Mol, Wim K. Lagrand, Josè P.S. Henriques

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2010
Typearticle
Languagenl
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpellaCardiogenic shockMedicineCirculatory systemCardiologyIntra-aortic balloon pumpPercutaneousInternal medicineShock (circulatory)Percutaneous coronary interventionConventional PCIHemodynamicsSurgeryMyocardial infarctionIntra-Aortic Balloon Pumping
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanical circulatory support has become an increasingly important therapeutic option in the field of cardiology, both with regard to treatment of patients in cardiogenic shock and protection against haemodynamic instability during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is the current standard treatment for mechanical circulatory support. However, its efficacy seems limited, both in acute and elective settings. The Impella system is a new technique which may be a suitable alternative to IABP treatment. The Impella is a small micro-axial, catheter-mounted cardiac pump, which is inserted through the femoral artery. Safety and efficacy of Impella treatment have been demonstrated during elective high-risk PCI. In the setting of cardiogenic shock, mechanical support with the Impella may lead to partial recovery of left ventricular function, especially when Impella treatment is applied according to a carefully designed pre-specified protocol.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.009

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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)Same topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207