Ventricular Assist Devices as a Bridge to Cardiac Transplantation: The Ottawa Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports our experience with ventricular assist devices (VADs) as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. From 1991 to 2003, a total of 42 patients received a Thoratec VAD (Thoratec Laboratories Corporation Inc., Pleasanton, CA, U.S.A.) (Group T) and 12 patients received a Novacor VAD (WorldHeart Corporation, Ottawa, Canada) (Group N). Thirty Thoratec patients were transplanted compared to six in the Novacor group. Four more Novacor patients are still supported. Of the transplanted patients, 87% survived to hospital discharge in Group T and 67% in Group N. Infections affected 29% and 50% of Group T patients during support and post-transplantation, respectively, compared to 25% and 0%, respectively, in Group N. Neurologic complications affected 33% of patients in each group during support. Reopening rates for bleeding during support were 45% and 42% in Groups T and N, respectively. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the two groups. Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of VADs in bridging mortally ill cardiac patients to successful heart transplantation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".