Functional Status and Quality of Life After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The functional and quality-of-life benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have not been established. PURPOSE: To evaluate the changes in functional status and quality of life after TAVR. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2002 to 30 September 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of TAVR that reported the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, Short Form-12/36 Health Survey physical and mental component summary (points), or other measures of functional status. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted the mean change (follow-up minus baseline) in primary outcomes. Because of substantial heterogeneity, data were not pooled; the range of mean change was summarized. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 60 observational studies (56 pre–post comparison and 4 head-to-head comparative studies) and 2 randomized, controlled trials (11 205 patients). Most studies showed a clinically important decrease in NYHA class at 6 to 11 months (range, -0.8 to -2.1 classes) and 12 to 23 months (range, -0.8 to -2.1 classes). The improvement in the Short Form-12/36 Health Survey physical component score was clinically important over 12 months (range, 4.9 to 26.9 points), and the change in mental component score was smaller (range, 1.0 to 8.9 points).Clinically important improvements were seen in other disease-specific measures but were less consistently seen in general health measures. LIMITATIONS: Comparative evidence is limited by few head-to-head studies. Survivor bias may have overestimated the benefits. CONCLUSION: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement provides clinically important benefits in physical function and disease-specific measures of quality of life but modest benefits in psychological and general health measures. More comparative studies on functional status and quality of life are needed for informed treatment decision making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".