MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177479933 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.13294

Reaching Consensus for Unified Medical Language in Fontan Care

2021· article· en· W3177479933 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFontan procedurePopulationIntensive care medicineConsistency (knowledge bases)Heart diseaseCardiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The Fontan operation has resulted in improved survival in patients with single-ventricle congenital heart disease. As a result, there is a growing population of teenagers and adults with a Fontan circulation. Many co-morbidities have been increasingly recognized in this population due to the unique features of the Fontan circulation. Standardization of how Fontan co-morbid conditions are defined will help facilitate understanding, consistency and interpretability of research and clinical experience. Unifying common language usage in Fontan is a critical precursor step for data comparison of research findings and clinical outcomes and ultimately accelerating improvements in management for this growing group of patients. This manuscript aimed to create unified definitions for morbidities seen after the Fontan palliation. METHODS: In association of many congenital heart disease organizations, this work used Delphi methodology to reach a broad consensus among recognized experts regarding commonly used terms in Fontan care and research. Each definition underwent at least three rounds of revisions to reach a final definition through surveys sent to experts in the field of single-ventricle care. RESULTS: The process of reaching a consensus on multiple morbidities associated with the Fontan procedure is summarized in this manuscript. The different versions that preceded reaching the consensus are also presented in the Supporting Information. Table 1 represents the final definitions according to the consensus. CONCLUSIONS: We propose the use of these definitions for clinical care, future research studies, registry development and clinical trials.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.296 · 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