Gender differences in the long-term outcomes after valve replacement surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes in women and men after valve replacement surgery. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Postoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR). PATIENTS: 3118 patients (1261 women, 1857 men) who underwent AVR or MVR between 1976 and 2006 (2255 AVR, 863 MVR), with mean follow-up of 5.6 (4.5) years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The independent effect of gender on the risk of long-term complications (reoperation, stroke and death) after valve replacement surgery using multivariate actuarial methods. RESULTS: After implantation of an aortic valve bioprosthesis, women had a significantly lower rate of reoperation compared to men (comorbidity-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.4; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.2 to 0.9). In contrast, if an aortic mechanical prosthesis had been implanted, women were more at risk for late stroke compared to men (HR 1.7; CI 1.1 to 2.7). After adjustment for age and co-morbidities, women had significantly better long-term survival compared to men after bioprosthetic AVR (HR 0.5; CI 0.3 to 0.6), but there was no survival difference between genders after mechanical AVR. Trends existed towards better survival for women after bioprosthetic MVR (HR 0.6; CI 0.4 to 1.0) and mechanical MVR (HR 0.8; CI 0.5 to 1.1). CONCLUSION: The long-term outcomes after valve replacement surgery differ between women and men. Although women have more late strokes after valve replacement, they undergo fewer reoperations and have better overall long-term survival compared to men.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".