MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736607134 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx383

ESC Joint Working Groups on Cardiovascular Surgery and the Cellular Biology of the Heart Position Paper: Peri-operative myocardial injury and infarction in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery

2017· article· en· W2736607134 on OpenAlexaff
Matthias Thielmann, Vikram Sharma, Nawwar Al‐Attar, Heerajnarain Bulluck, Gianluigi Bisleri, Jeroen J. H. Bunge, Martin Czerny, Péter Ferdinandy, Ulrich H. Frey, Gerd Heusch, Johannes Holfeld, Petra Kleinbongard, Gudrun Kunst, Iréne Lang, Salvatore Lentini, Rosalinda Madonna, Patrick Meybohm, Claudio Muneretto, Jean‐François Obadia, Cinzia Perrino, Fabrice Prunier, Joost P. G. Sluijter, Linda W. van Laake, Miguel Sousa‐Uva, Derek J. Hausenloy

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersMedical Research CouncilZonMwDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseCoronary artery bypass surgeryHeart failureRevascularizationBypass surgeryPerioperativePopulationArterySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Funding Information: European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST EU-ROS) and Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA K 109737 and ANN 107803) to P.F; British Heart Foundation (grant number FS/10/039/28270), the Rosetrees Trust, and National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre to D.J.H.; Italian Ministry of Health (GR-2009-1596220) and the Italian Ministry of University (RBFR124FEN) to C.P.; Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW Veni 91612147) and Netherlands Heart Foundation (Dekker 2013T056) to L.V.L.; German Research Foundation (He 1320/18-3; SFB 1116 B8 to G.H.).

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations169
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207