Anatomo-pathological analysis after CoreValve Revalving system implantation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Significant technological improvements have made percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR) simpler and safer, but the behaviour of the implanted valve over time remains unknown. We report the anatomo-pathological analysis of patients who died at different time intervals post PAVR with the CoreValve Revalving System. METHODS AND RESULTS: In our early experience, 21 patients underwent CoreValve implantation between 12/2005 and 02/2007. Among the 11 deaths at one year follow-up, four patients had an autopsy with macro and microscopic analysis. The device was divided in three parts during pathological assessment: the lower portion (area 1), the leaflets (area 2) and the upper part (area 3). The CoreValves were implanted for 3, 13, 104 and 350 days. Gross examination showed neointimal tissue covering most of the frame struts in contact with the aortic wall, but areas of high velocity blood flow were bare. Histopathology examination demonstrated fibrin deposition and inflammatory response early after valve implantation, followed by neointimal coverage with progressive regression of the inflammatory response over time. CONCLUSIONS: While waiting for results of longer term PAVR echocardiographic follow-up, the anatomic assessment is encouraging with neointimal coverage of the native valve site and no excessive pannus formation occurring over the valve leaflets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it