MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bioprosthetic heart valves: modes of failure

2009· review· en· W1980834102 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHistopathology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPannusMedicineHeart valve replacementMechanical valveHeart valveEndocarditisSurgeryHeart failureMechanical heart-valveInfective endocarditisCalcificationValve replacementMechanical heartIntensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicineStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Valve replacement started in 1960, with the surgeon now having a significant variety of prosthetic heart valves from which to choose. These valves are broadly divided into mechanical heart valves (MHV) and bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV). Improvements in the performance and ease of usage of BHV without the need for anticoagulant therapy are among the desired features of BHV and hence the increasingly preferred choice over their mechanical counterparts. However, with increased use the post-implantation complications have become more apparent, and these include: calcification, cusp tears, pannus growth, infective endocarditis, valve thrombosis and other factors specific to valve type. In this review we describe these complications in order to bring awareness among surgeons, clinicians and pathologists. Diagnosis, treatment and preventive measures, if taken in a timely manner, can help reduce their impact and further enhance the quality of life of patients with prosthetic heart valves.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.314 · 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