MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190835264 · doi:10.1016/j.xjtc.2021.07.017

Commentary: Key is reproducibility

2021· editorial· en· W3190835264 on OpenAlexaff
Osami Honjo, Sachiko Kadowaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Techniques · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary artery bandingMedicinePulmonary arteryCardiologyInternal medicineHemodynamicsArteryPulmonary valveBlood flow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Main pulmonary artery banding (mPAB) is a common palliative strategy to control excessive pulmonary blood flow in various types of congenital heart diseases. Although it is generally a simple and effective procedure, mPAB is notorious for its unpredictability and inaccuracy in its tightness and subsequent impact on balancing the physiology. The difficulty of the conventional mPAB stems from dynamic physiologic and hemodynamic changes during mPAB due to sudden change in the ventricular afterload1 and also due to somatic growth overtime, which acts as “natural tightening.” Anatomic distortion of the branch pulmonary artery (PA) and the pulmonary valve are also common and troublesome problems of this strategy.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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 topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207