MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070264049 · doi:10.1097/hco.0b013e328335ffde

Bicuspid-aortic valve surgery: repair or replace?

2010· review· en· W2070264049 on OpenAlexaff
Pietro Bajona, Christopher M. Feindel

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBicuspid aortic valveMedicineObservational studyBicuspid valveCardiologyInternal medicineDiseaseAortic valveSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The surgical management of the bicuspid-aortic valve along with associated aortic disease remains a challenge. On the basis of recent literature as well as on our own experience, we offer several recommendations for the most appropriate surgical management of the patients with bicuspid-aortic valve disease. RECENT FINDINGS: In 2006, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association published guidelines in order to define the standard of care for the management of patients with bicuspid-aortic valve; however, these are consensus-based, mainly from observational studies, and not all surgeons accept these recommendations. SUMMARY: Surgery for bicuspid-aortic valve and associated aortic disease should be 'custom-made' for each patient and may require complex decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207