Outcomes and alternative techniques for device closure of the large secundum atrial septal defect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outcomes of device closure of large and small secundum atrial septal defects (ASDs) as related to rim anatomy with the Amplatzer atrial septal occluder were compared. Rim adequacy (> or = 5mm) of the anterior, inferior, posterior, and superior rims was determined using transesophageal echocardiography. Balloon-stretched defect size defined patients into two groups: group 1, < or = 25 mm (n = 138); group 2, > 25 mm (n = 34). Rim deficiency (n = 62) was more frequent in group 2 compared to group 1 (50% vs. 33%; P = 0.07), especially inferior rim deficiency (35% vs. 2%; P = 0.005). Device deployment was successful in group 1 and group 2 (100% vs. 91%; P = 0.007). Unsuccessful deployment was associated with an ASD of > 25 mm (P = 0.007) and inferior rim deficiency (P = 0.001). At first follow-up (54 +/- 16 days), right ventricular systolic pressure had improved in both groups (P < 0.001). Closure of a large ASD associated with a lack of support in the inferior rim may warrant alternative strategies to position the device successfully.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".