MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385248211 · doi:10.1051/ject/202052063

Are We Able to Dose Protamine Accurately Yet? A Review of the Protamine Conundrum

2020· review· en· W4385248211 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Hecht, Martin Besser, Florian Falter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ExtraCorporeal Technology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgios PharmaceuticalsVifor PharmaLivaNova
KeywordsProtamineDosingCardiopulmonary bypassHeparinMedicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Without anticoagulation, cardiopulmonary bypass would not have developed over the last nearly 60 years into one of the most influential innovations in medicine; without the ability to reverse anticoagulation, cardiac surgery might not have become the common intervention, which is now practiced globally. Despite the recent breathtaking developments in extracorporeal technology, heparin and protamine remain the pillars of anticoagulation and its reversal until this day. However, there is still much controversy in particular about protamine dosing regimens. A number of recent publications investigating various approaches to dosing protamine have rekindled this debate. This review is seeking to capture the current thinking about protamine dosing after cessation of cardiopulmonary bypass.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ExtraCorporeal TechnologySame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207