MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793346093 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.1148

Guideline Recommendations for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Evolve But Does Clinical Practice Match the Pace?

2018· letter· en· W2793346093 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Camilla Normand, Kenneth Dickstein

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiac resynchronization therapyMedicineHeart failureGuidelineEjection fractionInternal medicineCardiologyClinical PracticeHeart RhythmCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyQRS complexPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article refers to 'Effect of expanding evidence and evolving clinical guidelines on the prevalence of indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure' by L.H. Lund et al.,

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 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)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.373
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.373
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0130.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207