Commentary: Call for teamwork to be a class I, evidence-level A recommendation in all guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
believed they were effective.In demonstrating the variability across centers performing complex aortic surgery, the study highlights areas in need of more research or best practice recommendations.The notable limitations of the study, which the authors thoroughly address, relate primarily to the inherent issues with bias in survey analysis.Self-reporting may introduce issues due to respondents providing answers that they believe conform with a perceived norm rather than their actual practice patterns.Recent cases or complications may result in recall bias, with respondents providing answers that reflect their recent experience rather than their overall true practice pattern.Despite these limitations, the authors provide valuable insight into current real-world practices in the management of complications in patients undergoing complex thoracic aortic surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.122 | 0.086 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.019 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".