MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982681489 · doi:10.1177/2150135119880890

Developments in Pediatric Ventricular Assist Device Support

2019· review· en· W2982681489 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian C. Tume, Jennifer Conway, Kathleen R. Ryan, Joseph Philip, Justine M. Fortkiewicz, Jenna Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSAFERIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanical support devices have revolutionized the management of circulatory failure. This has been met by a dramatic increase in ventricular assist device (VAD) utilization in children over the last two decades. Previous wide gaps in experience and knowledge have significantly narrowed in the recent years. As we continue to gain experience with this technology, we face new challenges such as complex congenital circulations and small patient size. The emergence of new pharmacologic therapies and device technology offers more opportunities and requires constant adjustment in practice. As we continue to embark on this journey, constant insight is needed to refine patient selection criteria, minimize complications, and continue to push the field for safer smaller devices to accommodate these complex patient populations. In this review focused at inpatient critical care environment, we discuss the recent field developments and focus on challenging patient populations, the emergence of temporary support, management of anticoagulation, and diagnostic approach to stroke in the setting of VAD support.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart SurgerySame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207