Discussion to: Impact of pulsatile pulmonary blood flow on cardiopulmonary exercise performance after the Fontan procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Good morning, everybody.Ed Hickey from Texas Children's and previously Toronto where we had a pretty sizeable cohort of adults who had previously undergone Bjork-modified Fontans in the '80s and '90s.And anecdotally, it was clear to us actually at the time that they really did very well in the long-term, and you have now shown that in what's a pretty elegant analysis and very wellwritten manuscript, so congratulations to you and your coauthors.I have three general questions for you.There's long been a recognition that some sort of contractional pulsatility in the Fontan circuit would be beneficial.In fact, it's my understanding in the very, very, very early Fontan procedures where valves were incorporated in the IVC and PA, there was a thinking that the right atrial contraction might contribute to pulmonary blood flow.That was quickly shown not to be the case.But in the Bjork modification, you are necessarily incorporating the ventricle in the circuit.It's unlike any other Fontan, which excludes the ventricle.So conceptually, that will help with pulsatility with pulmonary blood flow.So, this also will make sense.How can you tease out
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".