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

Surgical Treatment of Constrictive Pericarditis

2017· review· en· W2609045301 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

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.175
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