MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609045301 · doi:10.14503/thij-16-5772

Surgical Treatment of Constrictive Pericarditis

2017· review· en· W2609045301 on OpenAlexaff
Burak Can Depboylu, Parmeseeven Mootoosamy, Nicola Vistarini, Ariane Testuz, Ismaı̈l El-Hamamsy, Mustafa Çıkırıkçıoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueTexas Heart Institute Journal · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPericarditis and Cardiac Tamponade
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstrictive pericarditisMedicinePericardiectomyRestrictive cardiomyopathyPericardiumCardiologyCardiac catheterizationDiastoleInternal medicinePericarditisRadiologyConstrictionHeart failureSurgeryCardiomyopathyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constrictive pericarditis is the final stage of a chronic inflammatory process characterized by fibrous thickening and calcification of the pericardium that impairs diastolic filling, reduces cardiac output, and ultimately leads to heart failure. Transthoracic echocardiography, computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging each can reveal severe diastolic dysfunction and increased pericardial thickness. Cardiac catheterization can help to confirm a diagnosis of diastolic dysfunction secondary to pericardial constriction, and to exclude restrictive cardiomyopathy. Early pericardiectomy with complete decortication (if technically feasible) provides good symptomatic relief and is the treatment of choice for constrictive pericarditis, before severe constriction and myocardial atrophy occur. We describe our surgical approach to constrictive pericarditis, summarize our results in 93 patients, and provide a brief overview of the literature.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations88
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTexas Heart Institute JournalSame topicPericarditis and Cardiac TamponadeFrench-language works237,207