MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147960428 · doi:10.1093/ejechocard/jen320

Intermittent acute aortic regurgitation of a mechanical bileaflet aortic valve prosthesis: diagnosis and clinical implications

2008· article· en· W2147960428 on OpenAlexaff
Tomás F. Cianciulli, María Cristina Saccheri, Jorge A. Lax, Robert Guidoin, Ze Zhang, Juan E. Guerra, Horacio A. Prezioso, Luis Alfonso Vidal

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital Saint-François d'Assise
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePannusRegurgitation (circulation)ProsthesisCardiologyInternal medicineSurgeryAortic valve replacementComplicationAortic valveMechanical heart-valveHeart valveStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intermittent aortic regurgitation (AR) is an unusual complication after a mechanical prosthetic replacement. We describe a rare case of intermittent dysfunction of a bileaflet mechanical aortic prosthetic valve in a 41-year-old man with a 21 mm Tri-technologies prosthetic valve implanted 4 years before. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) before discharge was normal and prosthesis-patient mismatch was ruled out. He was admitted to our hospital because of mild dyspnoea at effort. TTE revealed acute and severe intermittent AR. The patient underwent surgery, during which abnormal proliferation of subvalvular pannus overgrowth on the inflow aspect of the prosthesis was found impeding the normal closure of one of the discs of the prosthesis. The pannus formation was resected, the Tri-technologies prosthetic valve was prophylactic explanted and a 23 mm St Jude Medical bileaflet mechanical prosthesis valve was implanted. We describe the role of TTE and the limitation of the cinefluoroscopy in the diagnosis of Tri-technologies prosthetic dysfunction.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207