Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design of stentless valve prostheses is intended to achieve a more physiological flow pattern and superior hemodynamics in comparison to stented valves. First - generation stentless bioprosthesis were the Prima valve, the Freestyle valve and the Toronto stentless porcine valve. The second generation of stentless valves, as the Super stentless aortic porcine valve, need only one suture line. The Sorin Pericarbon Freedom and the Equine 3F heart Valve belong to the third generation of stentless valve pericardial bioprostheses. A stentless valve to replace a full root can be implanted by several surgical techniques: complete or modified subcoronary, root inclusion and full root. The full root technique is accompanied by the lowest incidence of patient-prothesis mismatch. Our own clinical experience reflects more than 3000 stentless valve implantations since April 1996. Randomized study trials showed a hemodynamic advantage for stentless valves, but several could not reach a significant level. Also reported was a significant advantage of stentless bioprostheses concerning transvalvular gradients, effective valve area and quicker regression of the left ventricular mass 6 months after the operation, but at 12 months. Advantages are obvious in patients with a decreased left ventricle ejection fraction of less than 50% and in smaller implanted valve size, concomitant aortic root pathology (e.g. dissection) and aortic valve endocarditis. A survival advantage for stentless bioprostheses in comparison to stented ones has been reported by all studies in the literature. Stentless valves enrich the surgical armamentarium. Time will define the place of stentless valves in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.050 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".