MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2935114134 · doi:10.1056/nejme1902334

A Device on Trial — Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Critical Care

2019· letter· en· W2935114134 on OpenAlexaff
François Lauzier, James D. Douketis

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFood and drug administrationIntensive care medicineIntensive care unitRisk analysis (engineering)Medical emergencyPatient safetyMedical deviceCritically illHealth careBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intensive care unit (ICU) is replete with devices used for monitoring, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation in critically ill patients. The approval process for high-risk medical devices in the United States is intended to give reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. For approval of noninvasive and non–life-sustaining moderate-risk devices such as those used for intermittent pneumatic compression, the Food and Drug Administration requirements are less stringent and instead focus on showing “substantial equivalence” to devices already on the market.1 In addition, the postmarketing monitoring of medical devices aims primarily to confirm safety rather than show effectiveness. Consequently, apparently . . .

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0320.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of Medicine→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→