MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137222841 · doi:10.1510/icvts.2010.255240

Beating heart versus conventional mitral valve surgery

2010· article· en· W2137222841 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineMitral valve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to compare the results of beating heart technique and conventional mitral valve surgery (MVS). METHODS: Three hundred and nineteen patients who underwent MVS between April 2005 and December 2006 were enrolled in the study. While 125 patients underwent beating heart MVS (group 1), the conventional approach was used for 194 patients (group 2). Of those patients who underwent beating heart MVS, 75 underwent MVS without cross-clamping the aorta. Coronary sinus retroperfusion was used during surgery in the remaining 50 patients. The right anterolateral thoracotomy was performed in nine out of the 29 patients requiring re-operation, while resternotomy was performed in 20. RESULTS: No significant differences were shown between the groups in the preoperative period in terms of the Parsonnet mortality score, Ontario mortality score, and length of intensive care stay. However, there were significant differences with respect to EuroSCORE risk score, EuroSCORE mortality, and Parsonnet risk score, and length of hospital stay according to Ontario risk scoring. It was established that the patients in group 1 had a shorter length of hospital stay [group 1: six days (range, 4-37 days); group 2: 10 days (range, 4-62 days)]. Group 1 was observed to have shorter time periods when the groups were compared regarding operative time [group 1: 130 min (range, 100-270 min); group 2: 240 min (range, 100-360 min)], cross-clamping (XCL) time [group 1: 27.5 min (range, 3-99 min); group 2: 60.5 min (range, 30-163 min)], and cardiopulmonary bypass time [group 1: 57 min (range, 22-150 min); group 2: 90 min (range, 39-388 min)]. There were also significant differences in favor of group 1 in terms of postoperative need for inotropic support [group 1: 26 patients (16%); group 2: 68 patients (35%)]. Although there were no statistically significant differences in the groups in terms of mortality rates according to the Parsonnet scoring system, with the exception of the moderate risk group, it was noted that the mortality rates in the beating heart group were lower. CONCLUSIONS: This study concluded that beating heart MVS can be performed successfully, particularly for patients at higher risk which will lead to increased morbidity and mortality in postoperative period.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.007
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it