MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327295175 · doi:10.1586/erd.12.78

Percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation: present and future perspective

2013· review· en· W2327295175 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Fernández-Rodríguez, Joaquim Cevallos, Salvatore Brugaletta, Victoria Martín‐Yuste, Xavier Freixa, Rut Andrea, Carlos Falces, Ander Regueiro-Cueva, Mónica Masotti, Manel Sabaté

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Medical Devices · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercutaneousMedicineStenosisProsthesisAortic valveBalloonAortic valve stenosisCardiologySurgeryInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation is becoming the standard of care for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis and a valid alternative for those at high surgical risk. Since the first percutaneous transcatheter aortic-valve implantation in humans in 2002, over 50,000 transcatheter aortic valves have been implanted in the last decade, with progressive improvement in the available devices. Overall, there are two main families of transcatheter prosthesis: self-expandable and nonself-expandable. The self-expandable devices, for which CoreValve(®) (Medtronic CV Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Luxembourg) represents the prototype, are characterized by a structure composed of shape memory materials, usually nitinol, which acquire its final shape once released. By contrast, the non-self-expandable prostheses, mainly represented by the Edwards(®) valve (Edwards Life Sciences, Inc., CA, USA), require balloon dilatation to reach its final shape. Although several publications have already provided positive data on both technologies, new clinical studies with improved systems are currently being conducted in order to provide more solid data and potentially expand the spectrum of patients who can benefit from this therapy. Thus, the aim of the present paper is to review the salient features of the two most used systems today (third-generation CoreValve and Edwards SAPIEN XT(®)) as well as to provide data on other emerging valves and future perspectives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Medical DevicesSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207