2015 <scp>SCAI</scp>/<scp>ACC</scp>/<scp>HFSA</scp>/<scp>STS</scp> clinical expert consensus statement on the use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in Cardiovascular Care (Endorsed by the American heart association, the Cardiological society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiología Intervencionista; Affirmation of value by the Canadian association of interventional Cardiology–association Canadienne de Cardiologie d'intervention)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a brief summary of the relevant recommendations and references related to percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. The goal was to provide the clinician with concise, evidence‐based contemporary recommendations, and the supporting documentation to encourage their application. The full text includes disclosure of all relevant relationships with industry for each writing committee member. A fundamental aspect of all expert consensus statements is that these carefully developed, evidence‐based documents can neither encompass all clinical circumstances, nor replace the judgment of individual physicians in management of each patient. The science of medicine is rooted in evidence, and the art of medicine is based on the application of this evidence to the individual patient. This expert consensus statement has adhered to these principles for optimal management of patients requiring percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. © 2015 by The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, The American College of Cardiology Foundation, the Heart Failure Society of America, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".