MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401823519 · doi:10.1016/j.xjtc.2024.08.010

Reply: Promoting the floating Bentall technique: Acknowledging historical context and advocating for wider adoption in cardiac surgery

2024· article· en· W4401823519 on OpenAlexaff
Hugo Monteiro Neder Issa, Yuan Qiu, Munir Boodhwani

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Techniques · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)MedicineSurgeryBentall procedureHistoryAorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We express our appreciation to Drs Kırali and Adademir for their insightful comments regarding our recently published article on the “floating Bentall” technique for aortic root enlargement.1,2 We fully acknowledge and respect the work of Dr Yakut on the “flange technique,” which shares many similarities with the technique we described.3 It is evident that both methods share the same concept and aim to address the critical issue of prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with a small aortic annulus, an issue that continues to affect patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.337
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJTCVS TechniquesSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207