MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204586059 · doi:10.1016/j.xjtc.2021.09.051

Coronary surgery in women: How can we improve outcomes

2021· editorial· en· W3204586059 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brittany A. Zwischenberger, Oliver K. Jawitz, Jennifer S. Lawton

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Techniques · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineRandomized controlled trialAnginaCoronary artery diseaseCanadian Cardiovascular SocietySpecialtyRevascularizationInternal medicinePhysical therapySurgeryFamily medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Invited Expert Opinion is based on the presentation by Dr Jennifer Lawton at the 2021 American Association for Thoracic Surgery Meeting, International Coronary Congress Session. In this opinion, we consider the factors that contribute to the differences in outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between women and men to provide strategies to optimize outcomes in women.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0170.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.010

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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJTCVS TechniquesSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207