MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406200329 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2024.12.036

From Escalate to Elevate: A New Paradigm for Comprehensive Cardiogenic Shock Management

2025· review· en· W4406200329 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Darshan H. Brahmbhatt, Sanjog Kalra, Adriana Luk, Filio Billia

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiogenic shockMedicineShock (circulatory)Intensive care medicineMechanism (biology)Organ dysfunctionCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) present with critical hemodynamic compromise with low cardiac output (CO) resulting in end-organ dysfunction. Prognosis is closely related to the severity of shock, and treatment of patients with CS is resource intensive. In this review, we consider the current treatment paradigms alongside the evidence that underpins them. The current standard of treatment relies on a feedback mechanism, where small changes in treatment are assessed to see if clinical improvement occurs. This leads to delays that increase time in the shock state. The novel approach described proposes immediate treatment to ameliorate the shock state to "break" the shock spiral as quickly and decisively as possible, suggesting new metrics to measure performance.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CardiologySame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207