MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211125439 · doi:10.1093/europace/eus222

2012 EHRA/HRS expert consensus statement on cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: implant and follow-up recommendations and management: A registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the Heart Rhythm Society; and in collaboration with the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE), the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Association of Echocardiography (EAE) of the ESC and the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA). * Endorsed by the governing bodies of AHA, ASE, EAE, HFSA, HFA, EHRA, and HRS

2012· article· en· W4211125439 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Claude Daubert, Leslie A. Saxon, Philip B. Adamson, A. Auricchio, Ronald D. Berger, John F. Beshai, Ole Breithard, Michele Brignole, John G.F. Cleland, David B. DeLurgio, Kenneth Dickstein, Derek V. Exner, Michael R. Gold, Richard A. Grimm, David L. Hayes, Carsten W. Israel, C. Leclercq, Cecilia Linde, JoAnn Lindenfeld, Béla Merkely, Lluı́s Mont, Francis Murgatroyd, Frits W. Prinzen, Samir Saba, Jerold S. Shinbane, Jagmeet P. Singh, Alice Tang, P. E. Vardas, Bruce L. Wilkoff, José Luís Zamorano, Inder S. Anand, Carina Blomström‐Lundqvist, John Boehmer, Hugh Calkins, Serge Cazeau, Victoria Delgado, N.A. Mark Estes, David E. Haines, Fred Kusumoto, Frank Ruschitzka, Lynne W. Stevenson, Christian Torp‐Pedersen

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiac resynchronization therapyMedicineHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicineStatement (logic)ImplantHeart RhythmEjection fractionSurgeryPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International audience

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations257
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207