MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224240964 · doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2022.04.024

Reply: The forced correlation between ISCHEMIA and the inaccurate CABG recommendations of the 2021 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for cardiovascular Angiography coronary revascularization guidelines

2022· article· en· W4224240964 on OpenAlexaff
Faisal G. Bakaeen, Marc Ruel, Leonard N. Girardi, Joseph F. Sabik

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRevascularizationCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicineGuidelineCardiothoracic surgerySurgeryMyocardial infarctionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We appreciate the Letter to the Editor by Maron and colleagues regarding our manuscript addressing reasons for not endorsing the 2021 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Coronary Revascularization Guidelines.1-3 First, we congratulate the authors of the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) report on a well-conducted study providing reassuring data regarding the safety of initial conservative management of patients with low atherosclerotic burden and normal ventricular function.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJTCVS OpenSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207