Moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation: To operate or to ignore?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR) is characterized by significant, symptomatic multivessel coronary disease and mitral regurgitation 2-3+. CASE OUTLINE: A 60-year-old patient was admitted at the Cardiovascular Institute "Dedinje" due to the symptoms of unstable angina pectoris. He survived a myocardial infarction (inferoposterolateral localization) 8 years ago. On admission echocardiogram revealed regional disturbances of the left ventricle wall with ejection fraction of 25% and mitral regurgitation 2+. The patient underwent a triple coronary bypass with surgical correction of mitral regurgitation. Postoperative course was normal. CONCLUSION: Several authors are against surgical correction of MR in moderate ischemic MR due to several reasons: revascularization of ischemic areas will improve regional wall motion and correct MR, while mitral valve surgery adds significantly to the operative risk of coronary surgery. Other authors, however, favour combined operation emphasizing that in many patients coronary surgery alone will not correct a moderate ischemic MR. Today there is no consensus whether to operate the moderate ischemic MR or to ignore it. Some novel studies underscore significant predictors of a long-term survival of these patients: NYHA (New York Heart Association) class and left ventricle ejection fraction. In that respect a combined operation should be recommended in patients with heart failure and NYHA class III and IV.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
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.
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".