MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3100273688 · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.018275

Systematic Approach to Malalignment Type Ventricular Septal Defects

2020· review· en· W3100273688 on OpenAlexaff
Shi‐Joon Yoo, Mika Saito, Nabil Hussein, Fraser Golding, Hyun Woo Goo, Whal Lee, Christopher Z. Lam, Mike Seed, Andréea Dragulescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricleCardiologyInternal medicineAtrial septum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various congenital heart diseases are associated with malalignment of a part of the ventricular septum. Most commonly, the outlet septum is malaligned toward the right or left ventricle. Less commonly, the whole or a major part of the ventricular septum is malaligned in relation to the atrial septal plane. Although the pathological conditions associated with ventricular septal malalignment have been well recognized, the descriptions are often confusing and sometimes incorrect. In this pictorial essay, we introduce our systematic approach to the assessment of malalignment type ventricular septal defects with typical case examples. The systematic approach comprises description of the essential features of malalignment, including the following: (1) the malaligned part of the ventricular septum, (2) the reference structure, (3) the mechanism of malalignment, (4) the direction of malalignment, and (5) the severity of malalignment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→