MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The marvel of percutaneous cardiovascular devices in the elderly

2010· review· en· W1925406055 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Guidoin, Yvan Douville, Marie‐Annick Clavel, Ze Zhang, Mark Nutley, Philippe Pîbarot, Guy Dionne

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneousCardiologyInvasive surgeryMinimally invasive proceduresStenosisInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thanks to minimally invasive procedures, frail and elderly patients can also benefit from innovative technologies. More than 14 million implanted pacemakers deliver impulses to the heart muscle to regulate the heart rate (treating bradycardias and blocks). The first human implantation of defibrillators was performed in early 2000. The defibrillator detects cardiac arrhythmias and corrects them by delivering electric shocks. The ongoing development of minimally invasive technologies has also broadened the scope of treatment for elderly patients with vascular stenosis and aneurysmal disease as well as other complex vascular pathologies. The nonsurgical cardiac valve replacement represents one of the most recent and exciting developments, demonstrating the feasibility of replacing a heart valve by way of placement through an intra-arterial or trans-ventricular sheath. Percutaneous devices are particularly well suited for the elderly as the surgical risks of minimally invasive surgery are considerably less as compared to open surgery, leading to a shorter hospital stay, a faster recovery, and improved quality of life.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→