Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Tricuspid valve regurgitation is the most frequent valvular complication following orthotopic cardiac transplantation. It leads to diminished quality of life and predicts shortened long-term survival. The optimal surgical management of refractory tricuspid valve regurgitation in this setting is unclear. RECENT FINDINGS: Tricuspid valve regurgitation following cardiac transplantation is likely related to accumulated injury from repeated endomyocardial biopsies. Durability of repair in this setting was shown to be suboptimal. Replacement with a bioprosthesis was found to be durable and relieves symptoms of heart failure associated with tricuspid valve regurgitation in the majority of patients. Prophylactic tricuspid valve annuloplasty at transplantation was found to significantly decrease the incidence of early and late tricuspid valve regurgitation; long-term benefits remain unclear. SUMMARY: Results of tricuspid valve repair in the post-cardiac transplant setting are not ideal, and this strategy is better suited to treating functional tricuspid valve regurgitation resulting from annular dilatation. Tricuspid valve replacement with a bioprosthesis is a safe, durable, and effective method of treating tricuspid valve regurgitation following transplantation and allows for future endomyocardial biopsies to be performed. Mechanical valves should be avoided. A randomized controlled trial examining the long-term outcomes of prophylactic tricuspid annuloplasty is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".