MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092750687 · doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.10.010

2020 APHRS/HRS expert consensus statement on the investigation of decedents with sudden unexplained death and patients with sudden cardiac arrest, and of their families

2020· article· en· W3092750687 on OpenAlexaff
Martin K. Stiles, Arthur A.M. Wilde, Dominic J. Abrams, Michael J. Ackerman, Christine M. Albert, Elijah R. Behr, Sumeet S. Chugh, Martina C. Cornel, Karen Gardner, Jodie Ingles, Cynthia A. James, Jyh‐Ming Jimmy Juang, Stefan Kääb, Elizabeth S. Kaufman, Andrew D. Krahn, Steven A. Lubitz, Heather MacLeod, Carlos A. Morillo, Koonlawee Nademanee, Vincent Probst, Elizabeth V. Saarel, Luciana Sacilotto, Christopher Semsarian, Mary N. Sheppard, Wataru Shimizu, Jonathan R. Skinner, Jacob Tfelt‐Hansen, Dao Wu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart Rhythm · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of SydneyInvitaeMyoKardiaAudentes TherapeuticsNational Society of Genetic CounselorsUniversiteit van AmsterdamUniversity of AucklandBoston Scientific CorporationHeart Rhythm SocietyNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteGilead Sciences
KeywordsMedicineMultidisciplinary approachSudden deathSudden cardiac deathSudden cardiac arrestFamily medicineExpert opinionMedical emergencyIntensive care medicinePsychiatryCardiologyLaw

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0250.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.009

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations301
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueHeart RhythmSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207