MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2947968830 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024389

Validation of intracardiac shunt using thoracic bioimpedance and inert gas rebreathing in adults before and after percutaneous closure of atrial septal defect in a cardiology research unit: study protocol

2019· article· en· W2947968830 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Filaire, Aurélie Chalard, Hélène Perrault, Romain Trésorier, Jean‐René Lusson, Frédéric Costes, Claire Dauphin, Ruddy Richard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityMcGill UniversityMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineIntracardiac injectionPercutaneousShunt (medical)CardiologyInternal medicineDoppler echocardiographyCardiac catheterizationRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Intrathoracic shunt quantification is a major factor for appropriate clinical management of heart and pulmonary diseases. Intracardiac shunts quantified by pulmonary to systemic output ratio (Qp/Qs) are generally assessed by Doppler echocardiography, MRI or catheterisation. Recently, some authors have suggested the concomitant use of thoracic bioimpedance (TB) and inert gas rebreathing (IGR) techniques for shunt quantification. The purpose of this study is to validate the use of this approach under conditions where shunt fraction is directly quantified such as in patients with isolated atrial septal defect (ASD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial is a prospective, observational single-centre, non-blinded study of adults seen for percutaneous closure of ASD. Qp/Qs ratio will be directly measured by Doppler echocardiography and direct Fick. IGR and TB will be used simultaneously to measure the cardiac output before and after closure: the ratio of outputs measured by IGR and TB reflecting the shunt fraction. The primary outcome will be the comparison of shunt values measured by TB-IGR and Doppler echocardiography. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by an independent Research Ethics Committee (2017-A03149-44 Fr) and registered as an official clinical trial. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03437148; Pre-results.

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)0.015
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.396 · 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
GenreProtocol

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→