Mid-term Results of the Ross Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the Ross procedure has been performed for over three decades, its role in the management of patients with aortic valve disease is not well established. This study reviews our experience with this operation. From 1990 to 1999, 155 patients underwent the Ross procedure. The mean age of 106 men and 49 women was 35 years. Most patients (85%) had congenital aortic valve disease. The pulmonary autograft was implanted in the subcoronary position in 2 patients, as an aortic root inclusion in 78, and aortic root replacement in 75. The follow-up extended from 9 to 114 months, mean of 45 +/- 28 months, and it was complete. All patients have had Doppler echocardiographic studies. There was only one operative and one late death. The survival was 98% at 7 years. The freedom from 3+ or 4+ aortic insufficiency was 86% at 7 years and the freedom from reoperation on the pulmonary autograft was 95% at 7 years. Dilation of the aortic annulus and/or sinotubular junction was the most common cause of aortic insufficiency. One patient required three reoperations on the biological pulmonary valve. Most patients (96%) have no cardiac symptoms. The Ross procedure has provided excellent functional results in most patients, but progressive aortic insufficiency due to dilation of the aortic annulus and/or sinotubular junction is a potential problem in a number of patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".