MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242718112 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v9i2.40

Peri-operative Cardiovascular Risk and the General Internist

2014· article· en· W4242718112 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Bruce Fisher MD MSc

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRisk assessmentAsymptomaticPerioperativeIntensive care medicineRisk managementRisk factorSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Peri-operative cardiovascular risk assessment and management remain important and challenging tasks for the general internist. Since the 1999 publication of the now-widely-used revised cardiac risk index assessment model, there have been further risk factor qualifiers identified and newer predictive models developed. These include patient and surgical characteristic qualifiers, biomarkers, and new predictive models for non-cardiac and vascular surgery patients. These qualifiers and models inform improvements to our risk predictive performance and better guide our peri-operative surveillance and care. New evidence also reinforces the need for judicious and timelier preoperative consultation and medical management, and supports the targeted use of biomarker surveillance in the post-operative period to detect important but often otherwise-asymptomatic cardiovascular events. On the basis of this evidence review, the author invites discussion, debate, and the development of a more comprehensive and collaborative approach and guide to peri-operative risk assessment and management.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207