Aortic and Mitral Prosthetic Valve Replacement in Age Groups 61–65 & 66–70 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prosthesis choice for aortic and mitral valve replacements in patients aged 61-70 years is difficult. We evaluated prostheses in age groups 61-65 and 66-70 years. Freedom from major thromboembolism and hemorrhage was greater for bioprostheses than mechanical prostheses in both age groups after aortic valve replacement, but only in the younger age group after mitral valve replacement. Freedom from valve-related re-operation was greater after mitral valve replacement with mechanical prostheses in both age groups, but no difference after aortic valve replacement. Valve type was predictive of major thromboembolism and hemorrhage, except in older patients undergoing mitral valve replacement. Bioprostheses are favored for aortic valve replacement in both age groups, but the risk of re-operation with a bioprosthesis in the mitral position in patients aged 61-65 years favors a mechanical prosthesis. Prosthesis choice is less definite in those aged 66-70 years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".