MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009608962 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2019.12.025

Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Cardiac Transplant Network Position Statement on Heart Transplantation: Patient Eligibility, Selection, and Post-Transplantation Care

2020· article· en· W3009608962 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sharon Chih, Michael McDonald, Anne I. Dipchand, Daniel Kim, Anique Ducharme, Annemarie Kaan, Susan Abbey, Mustafa Toma, Kim Anderson, Ryan Davey, Lisa Mielniczuk, Patricia Campbell, Shelley Zieroth, Christine Bourgault, Mitesh Badiwala, Brian Clarke, Eric C. Bélanger, Michel Carrier, Jennifer Conway, Karen Doucette, Nadia Giannetti, Debra Isaac, R. MacArthur, Mario Sénéchal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of CalgaryInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversity of ManitobaStollery Children's HospitalSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaMontreal Heart InstituteHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité de MontréalUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie UniversitySickKids FoundationWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationPosition statementIntensive care medicineHeart transplantationPosition paperInternal medicineFamily medicinePathology

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0150.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations48
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CardiologySame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207