MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008276251 · doi:10.1097/hco.0b013e328335fff4

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement: a cardiac surgeon and cardiologist team perspective

2010· review· en· W2008276251 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Ruel, Marino Labinaz

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStenosisCardiologyAortic valve replacementInternal medicineValve replacementAortic valve stenosisModalitiesCardiopulmonary bypassAortic valveConcomitant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation is a promising new treatment modality for patients with aortic-valve disease, where it may revolutionize the treatment of elderly and high-risk patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The two devices currently available, the Edwards Sapien valve and the Medtronic CoreValve system, are presented. With a focus on the CoreValve, we describe the indications, contraindications, procedural technique, cardiologist and heart surgeon team dynamics, and special considerations in patients with concomitant cardiopulmonary disease, peripheral arterial disease, low gradient aortic stenosis, and previous bioprosthetic aortic-valve replacement. CONCLUSION: We make a case for judicious team-based adoption of these new technologies and emphasize the need for evidence-based and health economics data. We believe that the above will enable determining the therapeutic niche of these modalities amongst the excellent results of conventional aortic-valve replacement surgery.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207