MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122159487 · doi:10.1097/mat.0000000000001338

Management of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Treated With Extracorporeal Life Support: Interim Guidelines Consensus Statement From the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization

2021· article· en· W3122159487 on OpenAlexaff
Yigit S. Guner, Tim Jancelewicz, Matteo Di Nardo, Peter T. Yu, Mary Brindle, Adam M. Vogel, Sharada H. Gowda, Theresa R. Grover, Lindsay Johnston, Burhan Mahmood, Brian W. Gray, Rachel Chapman, Sarah Keene, Natalie E. Rintoul, John P. Cleary, Amir H. Ashrafi, Matthew T. Harting

Bibliographic record

VenueASAIO Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtracorporealCongenital diaphragmatic herniaLife supportExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMedicineInterimIntensive care medicineDiaphragmatic herniaHerniaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) receiving extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is complex. Significant variability in both practice and prevalence of ECLS use exists among centers, given the lack of evidence to guide management decisions. The purpose of this report is to review existing evidence and develop management recommendations for CDH patients treated with ECLS. This article was developed by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization CDH interest group in cooperation with members of the CDH Study Group and the Children's Hospitals Neonatal Consortium.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations56
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASAIO JournalSame topicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesFrench-language works237,207