MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091541691 · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.01.071

Current Status of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

2012· review· en· W2091541691 on OpenAlexaff
John G. Webb, David Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Cardiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineValve replacementStenosisRegurgitation (circulation)Aortic valve replacementStroke (engine)Aortic valve stenosisvalvular heart diseaseCardiologyStandard of careSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has long been the mainstay of therapy for severe aortic stenosis. However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now generally accepted as the new standard of care for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who are not candidates for open surgery. Arguably TAVR may also be a preferred alternative to SAVR in carefully selected high-risk, but still operable, patients in whom morbidity and mortality may be reduced. Although TAVR outcomes continue to improve, concerns remain with respect to vascular injury, stroke, paravalvular regurgitation, and valve durability. However, it seems likely that with ongoing refinement of transcatheter valve systems, techniques, and patient selection TAVR is becoming an increasingly appealing option for a much broader range of patients. Randomized trials and ongoing surveillance will play an important role as we enter a new era of rigorous clinical evaluation for minimally invasive therapies for structural heart disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations199
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of CardiologySame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207