MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028184060 · doi:10.14503/thij-12-3049

Repair of Bicuspid Aortic Valve in the Presence of Endocarditis and Leaflet Perforation

2014· article· en· W2028184060 on OpenAlexaff
William Kent, Hadi Toeg, Jehangir J. Appoo

Bibliographic record

VenueTexas Heart Institute Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryFoothills Medical CentreLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBicuspid aortic valveRegurgitation (circulation)EndocarditisAortic valve repairAortic valveSurgeryPerforationCardiologyInternal medicineAortic Valve InsufficiencyAortaAortic root

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aortic valve repair can be a good option in younger patients who have severe aortic regurgitation. A systematic, disease-directed approach can simplify repair. This case report describes how a simplified approach can be successfully applied to complex pathologic conditions of the aortic valve. A 49-year-old man with a bicuspid aortic valve and a history of endocarditis presented with severe aortic regurgitation and evidence of recurrent infection. Intraoperatively, we found congenital and degenerative aortic anatomy with endocarditis and perforation. We performed aortic valve repair to enable leaflet coaptation and to adjust the coaptation height. After 24 months, the patient remained well, with an intact repair and trivial aortic regurgitation. We describe our systematic repair approach and rationales for targeting repairs to identified lesions. To our knowledge, this is the first description of complex aortic valve repairs in a patient who had simultaneous congenital, degenerative, and infectious conditions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTexas Heart Institute JournalSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207