MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W73605102 · doi:10.1177/0310057x0903700506

Diagnosis of Postoperative Arrhythmias following Paediatric Cardiac Surgery

2009· review· en· W73605102 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Skippen, Shubhayan Sanatani, Robert M. Gow, Norbert Froese

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia and Intensive Care · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitHeart diseaseIntensive care medicineCardiac surgeryIntensive careCardiac arrhythmiaPediatricsSurgeryAtrial fibrillationCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arrhythmias are commonly encountered in the paediatric intensive care unit setting, most frequently in the setting of postoperative congenital heart disease. Postoperative arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity in children in the postoperative period following cardiac surgery for congenital cardiac lesions. It is important for all paediatric critical care physicians involved in the care of these children to understand the potential mechanisms involved and how to make an accurate diagnosis. The existing literature has focused on small groups and specific arrhythmias. There is a paucity of literature to guide the clinician in approaching arrhythmias in the paediatric intensive care unit setting. Our objective was to review the recognition and diagnosis of paediatric arrhythmias in the postoperative period following congenital cardiac surgery. Timely and accurate identification of the rhythm disturbance is mandatory and allows for the institution of effective, rhythm specific management strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesia and Intensive CareSame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207