MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224236368 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2022.03.021

Canadian Cardiovascular Society 2022 Guidelines for Cardiovascular Interventions in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

2022· article· en· W4224236368 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Ariane Marelli, Luc Beauchesne, Jack M. Colman, Robin Ducas, Jasmine Grewal, Michelle Keir, Paul Khairy, Erwin Oechslin, Judith Therrien, Isabelle Vonder Muhll, Rachel M. Wald, Candice Silversides, David J. Barron, Lee Benson, Pierre‐Luc Bernier, Eric Horlick, Réda Ibrahim, Giuseppe Martucci, Krishnakumar Nair, Nancy Poirier, Heather J. Ross, Helmut Baumgartner, Curt J. Daniels, Michelle Gurvitz, Jolien W. Roos‐Hesselink, Adrienne H. Kovacs, Christopher J. McLeod, Barbara J.M. Mulder, Carole A. Warnes, Gary D. Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of AlbertaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité de MontréalUniversity of CalgarySt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkJewish General HospitalSt. Boniface HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health Centre
FundersMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionTetralogy of FallotHeart diseaseIntensive care medicineBicuspid aortic valveAtrioventricular canalClinical trialInternal medicineAortic valveNursing

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations84
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CardiologySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207