What is the value of a nurseled clinic for patients with replacement heart valves?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Long-term regular specialist surveillance is recommended to reduce the risks of complications arising after heart valve surgery. This could be delivered by a nurse-led valve clinic. Aims: To determine how often clinical events are detected within a nurse-led valve clinic and how often a cardiologist or sonographer is required. Methods: Nurse-led valve clinic outcomes and events were analysed over 48 months from 2010 to 2013. An endpoint was any new symptom or event or the need for an unscheduled echocardiogram. Results: There were 544 visits in 206 patients. Endpoints were found in 178 visits (33%). A cardiologist was required in 100 visits (18%) to see the patient in 27 and give advice in 73. Another clinician was needed in 8 visits. Unscheduled echocardiography was required in 70 (13%) visits. Conclusion: A nurse-led valve clinic is feasible. Clinical endpoints are detected frequently and enhanced long-term care can be safely provided. Review or discussion with a cardiologist or unscheduled echocardiography is sometimes required which supports the model of a multidisciplinary clinic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".