Stentless vs. Stented Aortic Valve Replacement: Left Ventricular Mass Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the time-related regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after stentless vs. stented aortic valve replacement. From January 1992 to December 2002, 145 patients had a Toronto stentless porcine valve and 106 had a stented Carpentier-Edwards aortic valve replacement. Over a 10-year follow-up, survival was superior in the Toronto group vs. the Carpentier-Edwards group (84% vs. 74% at 4 years; 78% vs. 68% at 6 years; p < 0.001). A significant and constant reduction of peak and mean transvalvular gradients after valve replacement resulted in substantial regression of left ventricular mass index in both groups, which did not reach statistical significance. However, this phenomenon stopped at 3 years, and left ventricular mass index increased slowly after 5 years. Stentless and stented bioprostheses both showed good early and late clinical and hemodynamic outcomes, with the advantage of better midterm survival for stentless xenografts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".