MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408435873 · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5172936

Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for the Management of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Failure: Design and Rationale of the Revalve Study

2025· preprint· en· W4408435873 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Blackman, Suleman Aktaa, David Pickles, Mohamed Abdel‐Wahab, Ole De Backer, Nicolas M. Van Mieghem, Hendrik Treede, Uri Landes, Vinayak Bapat, David Hildick‐Smith, Marco Barbanti

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineAortic valve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Design and rationale paper for a clinical study of redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation; the object is a clinical management question.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

This is a clinical study protocol concerning repeat transcatheter valve implantation, not metaresearch.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: low

Clinical study design for redo TAVI valve failure; medical domain, abstract missing.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
GenreProtocol

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 abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207