MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735855782 · doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.07.008

Bridge to surgery: Best practice protocol derived from early clinical experience with the Bridge Occlusion Balloon. Federated Agreement from the Eleventh Annual Lead Management Symposium

2017· review· en· W2735855782 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bruce L. Wilkoff, Charles Kennergren, Charles J. Love, Steven P. Kutalek, Laurence M. Epstein, Roger G. Carrillo

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart Rhythm · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeonard M. Miller School of MedicineUniversity of California, San DiegoCollege of Medicine, Drexel UniversityUniversité de MontréalFlorida HospitalOhio State UniversityDrexel UniversityUniversity of MiamiJohns Hopkins UniversityYale UniversityJFK Medical Center Foundation
KeywordsMedicineEleventhBridge (graph theory)Best practiceExcellenceExpert opinionProtocol (science)Software deploymentMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineSurgeryEngineeringManagementAlternative medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A league of physicians at the Eleventh Annual Lead Management Symposium convened in Miami, FL, on February 4, 2017, developed an expert opinion and federated agreement on a best practice protocol for Bridge Occlusion Balloon (Bridge; Spectranetics Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO) deployment for patients undergoing transvenous cardiac implantable electronic device lead extraction on the basis of early clinical experience with the balloon. This best practice protocol aims to increase awareness and readiness to facilitate the rapid, consistent, and safe use of Bridge to reduce mortality in patients undergoing lead extraction.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations44
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeart RhythmSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207