MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774532254 · doi:10.21037/jtd.2017.11.89

VV extracorporeal life support for the Third Millennium: will we need anticoagulation?

2018· review· en· W2774532254 on OpenAlexaff
Danny Eytan, Yuval Bitterman, Gail M. Annich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic Disease · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtracorporealLife supportMedicineExtracorporeal circulationIntensive care medicineThrombusSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the late 1600's medicine and science have entertained the idea of extracorporeal circulation. With this technology to allow for cardiac and pulmonary support came the development of anticoagulation. Although this advanced the technology and capabilities of extracorporeal life support, it was not without complications and risks. The most common complications in extracorporeal life support (ECLS) present day are related to hemorrhage and thrombus due to the need for systemic anticoagulation and the challenges associated with it. This review focuses on present day techniques for anticoagulation for ECLS and what future surface modifications may do to obviate the use of systemic anticoagulation entirely.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic DiseaseSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207