MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242812674 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010426

First-line beta-blockers versus other anti-hypertensive medications for chronic type B aortic dissections

2013· reference-entry· en· W4242812674 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth K. Chan, Peggy S. Lai, James M Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsRichmond HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBETA (programming language)Internal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of first‐line beta‐blockers compared to other anti‐hypertensive medications for treating chronic type B thoracic aortic dissections.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.013
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.003

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.371
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207