Heart Team: Joint Position of the Swiss Society of Cardiology and the Swiss Society of Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Swiss Society of Cardiology (SSC) and the Swiss Society of Cardiac and ThoracicVascular Surgery (SSCTVS) have formulated their mutual intent of a close, patient-oriented, and expertise-based collaboration in the Heart Team Paper. The interdisciplinary dialogue between the SSC and SSCTVS reflects an attitude in decision making, which guarantees the best possible therapy for the individual patient. At the same time, it is a cornerstone of optimized process quality, placing individual interests into the background. Evaluation of the correct indication for a treatment is indeed very challenging and almost impossible to verify retrospectively. Quality in this very important health policy process can therefore only be assured by the use of mutually recognized indications, agreed upon by all involved physicians and medical specialties, whereby the capacity of those involved in the process is not important but rather their competence. These two medical societies recognize their responsibility and have incorporated international guidelines as well as specified regulations for Switzerland. Former competitors now form an integrative consulting team able to deliver a comprehensive evaluation for patients. Naturally, implementation rests with the individual caregiver. The Heart Team Paperof the SGK and SGHC, has defined guide boards within which the involved specialists maintain sufficient room to maneuver, and patients have certainty of receiving the best possible therapy they require.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.023 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".