MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940831409 · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.04.066

Concomitant anti-platelet therapy in warfarin-treated patients undergoing cardiac rhythm device implantation: A secondary analysis of the BRUISE CONTROL trial

2019· article· en· W2940831409 on OpenAlexafffund
Vidal Essebag, Ahmed AlTurki, Riccardo Proietti, Jeff S. Healey, George A. Wells, Atul Verma, Andrew D. Krahn, Christopher S. Simpson, Félix Ayala-Paredes, Benoit Coutu, Richard Leather, Kamran Ahmad, Satish Toal, John L. Sapp, Marcio Sturmer, Katherine M. Kavanagh, Eugene Crystal, Tiago Luiz Luz Leiria, Colette Seifer, Claus Rinne, David H. Birnie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cardiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's HospitalUniversity of ManitobaLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de SherbrookeQueen's UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of OttawaRoyal Jubilee HospitalKingston General HospitalSouthlake Regional Health CenterQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentrePopulation Health Research Institute
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéMinistry of Health, British ColumbiaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKorea Electrotechnology Research InstituteUniversity of Ottawa Heart Institute Foundation
KeywordsMedicineConcomitantWarfarinRandomized controlled trialSurgeryGuidelineInternal medicineAnesthesiaAtrial fibrillation

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CardiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207