International survey on the perioperative management of pulmonary endarterectomy: the perfusion perspective
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) is the most effective treatment available for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Patient selection, surgical technique and perioperative management have improved patient outcomes, which are traditionally linked to surgical and center experience. However, optimal perfusion care has not been well defined. The goal of the international survey was to better characterize the contemporary perfusion management of PEA and highlight similarities and controversies. METHOD: The combined caseload of 15 participating centers was 5,066 cases. Topics queried included materials and types of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) equipment, choice of prime, fluid management, deep hypothermia strategy, temperature management, treatment of acid-base abnormalities and intraoperative hematocrit as well as anticoagulation management for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION: Our assessment could provide a base for further advancement and may help design future studies to elucidate the impact of perfusion in this challenging field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it