MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384693847 · doi:10.7759/cureus.42051

Follow Your Heart: Trials and Tribulations of Sir Terence English and the First Successful Heart Transplant in the United Kingdom

2023· editorial· en· W4384693847 on OpenAlexaff
Jay J. Park, Sir Terence English

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransformative learningTransplantationPower (physics)TeamworkLawSurgerySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The journey of heart transplantation in the United Kingdom (UK) has been marked by challenges and triumphs. Following a series of unsuccessful transplant attempts in 1968, a moratorium was imposed on the procedure. However, in 1979, Sir Terence English broke the national ban, by performing the UK's first successful heart transplant at Papworth Hospital. This achievement opened doors for advancements in heart and lung transplantation and established the Papworth programme as a world leader in the field. Sir Terence's legacy stands as a testament to the transformative power of determination, perseverance and teamwork in overcoming the moratorium, lack of financial support, difficult colleagues and the failure of his first transplant attempt. Through a comprehensive review of the literature, qualitative interviews and Sir Terence's personal contributions, this article provides an account of his trials and tribulations, aiming to inspire and encourage physicians, surgeons and scientists in their pursuit of innovation in the field of medicine.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0110.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207