Mitral valve interventions in heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review describes new developments in mitral valve interventions for patients with heart failure. The review also discusses innovative therapies in the treatment of mitral regurgitation in patients with heart failure and describes novel risk factors of recurrent mitral regurgitation following repair in this population. RECENT FINDINGS: Percutaneous strategies are rapidly emerging as an important adjunct to conventional mitral surgery, specially for patients with functional mitral regurgitation and heart failure. Percutaneous therapies are a well-tolerated alternative to surgery in high-risk patients, but their long-term efficacy is not established. Partial ring annuloplasty and preoperative galectin-3 levels may be associated with recurrent mitral regurgitation after repair. Preclinical work has focused on injectable substances, which may ameliorate adverse left ventricular remodeling and recurrent mitral regurgitation after surgery. SUMMARY: Percutaneous therapies will continue to evolve and serve as an alternative to conventional surgery for patients with mitral regurgitation and heart failure. Determining anatomic and biochemical risk factors associated with recurrent mitral regurgitation after repair is crucial in tailoring therapy to individual patients. Preclinical work regarding infarct stabilization may benefit future patients with heart failure.
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 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) | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".