MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181465279 · doi:10.1016/j.xjtc.2021.06.038

Commentary: Five “Ws” of pulmonary arterioplasty for lung transplantation: Who, what, why, and where

2021· editorial· en· W3181465279 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Techniques · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnastomosisLung transplantationMedicineTransplantationLungAngioplastyPulmonary arteryRight pulmonary arterySurgeryCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary artery (PA) anastomosis during lung transplantation requires consideration of the length and diameter of the 2 vessels being anastomosed. Leaving the vessels long facilitates anastomosis, but risks postoperative kinking after the lung is inflated in a closed chest.1,2 Diameter discrepancy requires the careful circumferential narrowing of the larger vessel to match the smaller vessel, but inadvertent unequal suturing ratios may result in twisting, structuring, or narrowing of the anastomosis.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0720.061
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.011

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJTCVS TechniquesSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207