MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010470591 · doi:10.1253/circj.cj-19-0821

Mechanical Circulatory Support for Patients With Adult Congenital Heart Disease

2020· review· en· W3010470591 on OpenAlexaff
Maruti Haranal, Shuhua Luo, Osami Honjo

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart diseaseHeart failureHeart transplantationEconomic shortageCirculatory systemIntensive care medicineTransplantationPopulationDiseaseCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in surgical and medical care of children born with heart defects have led to the emergence of a unique subgroup of young adults known as adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD). Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in this subset. Management of HF is challenging in these patients owing to inherent structural variations with their associated physiological consequences. Heart transplantation is of limited utility in this group either because of donor shortage or associated comorbidities that make these patients ineligible for transplantation. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have evolved as an alternative treatment modality in supporting the failing myocardium of this population, but are often used less frequently than in those with a structurally normal heart because of the unique anatomical and physiological variations. These variations create a need to gather adequate knowledge on how best to support the hearts of ACHD patients in order to reduce mortality and morbidity. This review presents clinical experience with MCS in ACHD patients.

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)0.000
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation JournalSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207