MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

2009 Focused Updates: ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2004 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI Guidelines on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Updating the 2005 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update)

2009· article· en· W3209376675 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Frederick G. Kushner, Mary M. Hand, Sidney C. Smith, Spencer B. King, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Elliott M. Antman, Steven R. Bailey, Eric Bates, James C. Blankenship, Donald E. Casey, Lee A. Green, Judith S. Hochman, Alice K. Jacobs, Harlan M. Krumholz, Douglass A. Morrison, Joseph P. Ornato, David L. Pearle, Eric D. Peterson, Michael A. Sloan, Patrick L. Whitlow, David O. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Medicare and Medicaid ServicesGenentechNational Institutes of HealthSchool of Medicine, New York UniversityDaiichi-SankyoMomenta PharmaceuticalsVirginia Commonwealth UniversityYale UniversityBrigham and Women's HospitalAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityBayer HealthCareUniversity of South FloridaSanofiGlaxoSmithKlineGeorgetown UniversityTakeda OncologyAmgenPfizerYork UniversityAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary interventionCardiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.023

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.334
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

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
GenreOther

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

Citations1,705
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207