MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pectus Excavatum: Consensus and Controversies in Clinical Practice

2023· review· en· W4361306139 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nicky Janssen, Jean H. T. Daemen, Elise J van Polen, Nadine A. Coorens, Yanina JL Jansen, Aimée J P M Franssen, Karel W E Hulsewé, Yvonne L. J. Vissers, Frank-Martin Haecker, José Ribas Milanez de Campos, Erik R. de Loos, Horacio Abramson, Wolfgang William Schmidt Aguiar, Adam C. Alder, Gabriela Ambriz‐González, James Andrews, Leah M. Backhus, Sjoerd A. de Beer, Chih-Chun Chu, Bruce G. Currie, Laleng Mawia Darlong, Ramana Dhannapuneni, Daniel P. Doody, Gastón Elmo, Sherif Emil, Ricardo Escartín Villacampa, Paolo Albino Ferrari, Caroline Fortmann, Michael J. Goretsky, André Hebra, Stefan M. van der Heide, Jeroen Hendriks, Ab G. Hensens, Stijn Heyman, Pieter J. Van Huijstee, Karel W. E. Hulsewé, Maurizio Infante, Yanina Jansen, Dawn E. Jaroszewski, Robert E. Kelly, Geertruid M H Marres, Erik M. von Meyenfeldt, Pavol Omaník, Matthijs W. Oomen, Alfredo W. Peredo, David Pérez-Alonso, Claus Petersen, Hans K. Pilegaard, Marcos Prada‐Arias, Winfried Rebhandl, Ricardo M. Zarama, Daniel P. Ryan, Frédéric De Ryck, Ivan Schewitz, Miguel Lia Tedde, Mathew Thomas, Carlos Andrés de la Torre, Hans Van Veer, Dirk Vervloessem, Caroline Van De Wauwer, C. Wimmer, Hüseyin Yıldıran, Mustafa Yüksel, Gerda W. Zijp

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Thoracic Surgery · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade de São PauloInstituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialMcGill UniversityMedizinische Universität WienStanford University
KeywordsMedicinePectus excavatumClinical PracticeConsensus conferenceIntensive care medicineGeneral surgerySurgeryFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.432
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.119 · 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

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Thoracic SurgerySame topicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207