MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322383100 · doi:10.4244/eijv7i6a107

Prosthesis-patient mismatch in aortic valve disease: surgical versus transcatheter valve replacement

2011· article· en· W2322383100 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Pîbarot

Bibliographic record

VenueEuroIntervention · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProsthesisValve replacementCardiologyAortic valve replacementAortic valveProsthesis designInternal medicineSurgeryStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2/m 2 ) may be quite frequent (20-70%) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), whereas the prevalence of severe PPM (indexed EOA<0.65 cm 2 /m 2 ) ranges from 2% to 20% 1 . PPM, and especially severe PPM, is associated with increased risk of operative mortality, less improvement in symptoms, less regression of LV hypertrophy, more adverse cardiac events, and reduced long-term survival 1 . However, the impact of PPM is not equivalent in all patients, thereby underlining the importance of individualised preventive strategies. PPM is indeed relatively well tolerated in elderly, sedentary patients with preserved LV function, whereas it has a highly detrimental impact in patients with depressed LV systolic function, severe LV hypertrophy, and/or concomitant mitral regurgitation 1

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.004
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuroInterventionSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207