The use of a mini bypass circuit for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the study is to clinically evaluate minimally invasive mitral valve surgeries (MIMVS) using a mini bypass circuit. The challenge to perfusion is to keep pace with MIMVS, with demonstrated improvements in perfusion-related technologies. METHODS: From October 28, 2005 to September 10, 2008, we retrospectively evaluated thirty-four elective cases which used the mini-circuit (Medtronic Resting Heart System), with respect to safety, efficacy, cannulation technique, blood usage, resultant hemoglobin, length of ICU and hospital stay, and complications. CONCLUSION: The Medtronic Resting Heart System alleviates many factors, such as high shear stress, turbulence, air to blood interface and decreased oncotic pressure caused by hemodilution, providing more efficient perfusion to our MIMVS patients. We demonstrate, with minor circuit modifications and attention to venous air issues, that this mini-circuit can be used safely and effectively, while being associated with improvements in patient outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".