MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905120389 · doi:10.17352/2455-2976.000078

The Buddy Ballooning Technique- A simple debulking technique

2018· article· en· W2905120389 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Dangoisse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBallooningSimple (philosophy)DebulkingComputer scienceMedicinePhysicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author describes a simple and inexpensive way to deliver high pressures within an atherosclerotic coronary artery and reports two cases. The technique used two non-compliant (NC) balloons placed in parallel and inflated together within the same coronary segment. The cases illustrate two possible indications for the technique: lesion resistant to one adequately sized NC balloon or not fully expanded coronary stents after high-pressure non-compliant ballooning.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Medicine and CardiologySame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207