Transcatheter device versus surgical closure of ventricular septal defects: A clinical decision analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare transcatheter device versus surgical closure of ventricular septal defects (VSDs). METHODS: A clinical decision analysis was performed using standard gamble interviews. RESULTS: Device was initially preferred in 39 respondents (89%) and surgery in 5 (11%). The inherent difference in value between a perfect surgery and a perfect device (disutility of surgery) was equal to a mean risk of death of (1.2 +/- 2.2)%. Final values from decision analysis were initially equivalent. Values adjusted for estimated mortality, however, favored device (mean: 0.979 +/- 0.032) versus surgery (mean: 0.971 +/- 0.032), P = 0.052. When values were further adjusted for disutilities, device was significantly preferred (0.978 +/- 0.032) versus surgery (0.961 +/- 0.044), P < 0.005. Surgery would be preferred if the probability of major complications decreased below 5% or minor complications below 6%. CONCLUSIONS: When outcomes and their values are considered in a systematic manner, transcatheter device closure of suitable VSDs is favored over surgical repair.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".