Bibliographic record
Abstract
This editorial refers to ‘Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 3-year outcomes of self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis’†, by G.P. Ussia et al., on page 969 The prognosis for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis is poor. Although open surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the gold standard for the management of aortic stenosis, there are no randomized trials or formal evaluations of the sort that would currently be the norm to gain approval of such a costly and invasive treatment. However, like the use of parachutes when jumping from airplanes, randomized trials were presumably considered unnecessary. There is no doubt that SAVR can relieve symptoms and prolong life. With surgery already offering a tried and true option for patients with aortic stenosis, it is reasonable to expect more rigorous evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).1 Ussia et al. now report 3-year outcomes following CoreValve implantation from a large and well compiled Italian registry.2 In light of this and other recent studies,3–5 it may be helpful to review what we now know about some of the early concerns about TAVI that are gradually being addressed. Concerns such as: (i) aortic stenosis might not be adequately relieved by transcatheter valves; (ii) paravalvular leaks might have serious consequences; (iii) durability might be poor; and (iv) the TAVI procedure might be inherently more dangerous than SAVR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".