MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314516887 · doi:10.1097/mop.0b013e32834aa56a

Mechanism of valvular regurgitation

2011· review· en· W2314516887 on OpenAlexaff
Nee Scze Khoo, J F Smallhorn

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pediatrics · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanism (biology)Valvular regurgitationRegurgitation (circulation)CardiologyMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite improvements in surgical techniques, valvular regurgitation results in major morbidity in children with heart disease. Functional anatomy, mechanisms of valve closure and adaptation to changing hemodynamic stress in normal mitral and tricuspid valves are complex and only partially understood. As well, pathology of atrioventricular valve regurgitation is further complicated by congenital valve abnormalities involving leaflet tissue, supporting chordal apparatus and displaced papillary muscles. This review provides a current understanding of the mechanisms that result in atrioventricular valve failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Mitral valve leaflets have contractile elements, in addition to atrial muscle modulation of leaflet tension. When placed under mechanical tethering stress, the mitral valve adapts by leaflet expansion, which increases coaptation surface reserve and chordal thickening. Both pediatric and adult studies are increasingly reporting on the importance of subvalvar apparatus function in maintaining valve competency. SUMMARY: The maintenance of efficient valve function is accomplished by a complex series of events involving atrial and annular contraction, annular deformation, active leaflet tension, chordal transmission of papillary muscle contractions and ventricular contraction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.326 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PediatricsSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207