MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776411315 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2017.12.020

Aortic Arch Reconstructive Surgery With Conventional Techniques vs Frozen Elephant Trunk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017· review· en· W2776411315 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hasib Hanif, Luc Dubois, Maral Ouzounian, Mark D. Peterson, Ismaı̈l El-Hamamsy, François Dagenais, Ansar Hassan, Michael Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional HospitalUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteWestern UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineElephant trunksCochrane LibraryOdds ratioMeta-analysisSurgeryStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialInternal medicineAortic archAorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.024
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations102
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CardiologySame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207