MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080712285 · doi:10.1148/rg.346125076

Preprocedural CT Evaluation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: What the Radiologist Needs to Know

2014· review· en· W2080712285 on OpenAlexaff
Rodrigo Salgado, Jonathon Leipsic, Bharati Shivalkar, L Ardies, Paul L. Van Herck, Bart J. Op de Beeck, Christiaan Vrints, Inez Rodrigus, Paul M. Parizel, Johan Bosmans

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineValve replacementStenosisRadiologyAortic valve stenosisvalvular heart diseaseAortic valve replacementAortic valvePercutaneousCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease in the Western world. When symptomatic, aortic valve stenosis is a debilitating disease with a dismal short-term prognosis, invariably leading to heart failure and death. Elective surgical valve replacement has traditionally been considered the standard of care for symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. However, several studies have identified various subgroups of patients with a significantly elevated risk for surgery-related complications and death. Thus, not every patient is a suitable candidate for surgery. Recent developments in transcatheter-based therapies have provided an alternative therapeutic strategy for the nonsurgical patient population known as transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (also called transcatheter aortic valve implantation or percutaneous aortic valve replacement). In TAVR, the native aortic valve is replaced with a bioprosthetic valve via a nonsurgical endovascular, transaortic, or transapical pathway. Nevertheless, several anatomic and technical criteria must be met to safeguard patient eligibility and procedural success. Therefore, noninvasive imaging plays a crucial role in both patient selection and subsequent matching to a specific transcatheter valve size in an effort to ensure accurate prosthesis deployment and minimize peri- and postprocedural complications. The authors review the relevant anatomy of the aortic root, emphasizing the implications of anatomic pitfalls for correct reporting of imaging-derived measurements and important differences between findings obtained with different imaging modalities. They also discuss the evolving role of computed tomography and the role of the radiologist in patient triage in light of current viewpoints regarding patient selection, device size selection, and the preprocedural evaluation of possible access routes. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 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

Citations61
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207