SCAI SHOCK Stage Classification Expert Consensus Update: A Review and Incorporation of Validation Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Warm Welcome to The First Issue of JSCAIJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsVol. 1Issue 1100013PreviewIt is my great privilege to have been entrusted with the launch of the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (JSCAI). JSCAI is a powerful vehicle for authors to contribute and disseminate new clinical and scientific evidence related to all aspects of interventional cardiovascular medicine. As we release our first issue of the JSCAI, I hope you will enjoy the content and be motivated to contribute to our interventional community by submitting your next scientific manuscript. Full-Text PDF Open AccessThe Changing Landscape of Cardiogenic Shock: One Step Closer to Speaking a Common TongueJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsVol. 1Issue 1100012Preview“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw (1944) Full-Text PDF Open Access
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 | 0.045 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".