MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236845011 · doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2019.3439

Highlights

2020· article· en· W4236845011 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Cardiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Safety and Efficacy of Femoral vs Radial Access in STEMI 126Whether radial access or femoral access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with survival in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains controversial.Le May and coauthors enrolled 2292 patients with STEMI in a randomized clinical trial at 5 percutaneous coronary intervention centers in Canada.The trial was stopped early following a futility analysis.The primary outcome, 30-day all-cause mortality, did not differ between patients assigned to radial access vs femoral access (17 of 1136 [1.5%] vs 15 of 1156 [1.3%], respectively), and there were no differences in rates of reinfarction, stroke, and bleeding.In an Invited Commentary, Sweis places these results in context and notes that the weight of the evidence favors a radial-first approach.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA CardiologySame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207