MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406823539 · doi:10.1080/14796678.2025.2458402

Congenital cardiac surgical simulation: bridging global workforce gaps and optimizing outcomes

2025· review· en· W4406823539 on OpenAlexaff
Mimi Deng, Dominique Vervoort, Israel Valverde, Shi‐Joon Yoo, Brandon Peel, Rachel D. Vanderlaan, David J. Barron, Osami Honjo

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Cardiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBridging (networking)WorkforceMyocardial bridgingCardiologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCoronary angiographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reaching competency in congenital heart surgery (CHS) requires lengthy and rigorous training. Due to patient safety, time limitations, and procedural complexity, the intraoperative setting is not ideal for technical practice. Surgical simulation using synthetic, biological, or virtual models is an increasingly valuable educational tool for technical training and assessment. In particular, three-dimensional (3D) models are especially favorable in CHS education for its high-fidelity demonstration of congenital heart defects. In countries where there is a deficit of local cardiac surgical expertise, simple and inexpensive innovation, such as expanding hands-on technical training programs involving 3D-models and hybrid teaching, may partially address the lack of CHS training opportunities and the consequent unmet need for surgical management of pediatric heart disease.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture CardiologySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207