MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210251096 · doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2021.10.008

Controversies in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: Immediate versus watchful waiting for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation venting

2021· editorial· en· W3210251096 on OpenAlex
Yiorgos Alexandros Cavayas, Pierre‐Emmanuel Noly, Gurmeet Singh, Yoan Lamarche

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Open · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéFondation Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal
KeywordsExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationOxygenationWatchful waitingMedicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In patients in cardiogenic shock (CS), mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may improve systemic perfusion without increasing myocardial work. Restoration of oxygen delivery with reduced myocardial oxygen demand favors myocardial recovery. The hemodynamic effects of MCS have been extensively studied and elegantly reviewed previously. Pressure-volume loop simulations suggest that although venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may improve systemic perfusion, accompanying consequences on left ventricular (LV) dynamics may be detrimental.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
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 score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.254 · 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