MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280628334 · doi:10.21037/jtd-22-233

A study of mechanical ventilation in the ICU after cardiac surgery: a bibliometric analysis

2022· article· en· W4280628334 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic Disease · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicScientific Research and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScience Citation IndexBibliometricsMechanical ventilationIntensive care unitCitationImpact factorCardiac surgeryLibrary scienceIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: After cardiac surgery, patients are often admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to various preoperative factors and continue to receive mechanical ventilation. This study sought to conduct a bibliometric analysis to summarize studies on mechanical ventilation among postoperative ICU patients who had undergone cardiac surgery. Methods: We searched the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) database using the following terms: "cardiac surgery (Topic)", "intensive care (Topic)" and "ventilation (Topic)". The search results were analyzed using R software. The analysis examined the number of publications of relevant articles and the annual change trend, the number of times an article was cited and the annual change trend, the distribution of countries conducting the research, the cooperation between countries and the citation frequency, the distribution of institutions conducting research, the cooperation between institutions, and the citation frequency, the number of published articles, the cooperation among researchers, and the citations frequency of researchers, the journals in which the articles were published, and the use of keywords. Results: A total of 1,969 relevant research papers were included in this study. The main countries that conducted the relevant research included the United States (US), China, Germany, and Canada. The research institutions were mainly located in the US and Canada, and the main researchers were from research institutions in these countries. The most cited authors were Zappitelli, Hichey, and Wypij. According to Bradford's law, 9 core journals in this field were identified. The results of the keyword analysis showed that in the past 10 years, research has focused on the mortality of patients, but only a few related random controlled trials have been conducted. Conclusions: More randomized controlled trials need to be conducted in this field to provide higher evidence-based medical evidence.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0480.146
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.316 · 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