Aortic valve-sparing operations for aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Techniques of aortic root replacement have been developed that preserve the native aortic valve. These techniques avoid anticoagulation in patients who would otherwise receive a composite valve graft with a mechanical valve. RECENT FINDINGS: Longer-term data on the longevity of the main two techniques of aortic valve-sparing operations, the root remodeling and the valve reimplantation technique, are now becoming available. Root remodeling appears to have acceptable outcomes in patients without annuloaortic ectasia or Marfan syndrome. In such patients, the aortic valve reimplantation technique provides superior longevity because it provides external support for the aortic annulus and prevents ongoing dilatation. SUMMARY: Although aortic valve-sparing operations are being performed more frequently, particularly in younger patient populations, these procedures have not been adopted in the current guidelines. The excellent long-term outcomes of such procedures should facilitate their widespread adoption.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".