Surgical reconstruction of aortic root in Marfan syndrome patients: a systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Several recent studies have compared the clinical results of valve-sparing (VS) surgery and composite valve graft (CVG) surgery in the aortic root reconstruction of Marfan syndrome (MS) patients. The study aim was to investigate whether it is appropriate to preserve the native aortic valve in root surgery of MFS patients when taking the short-term and long-term prognoses into consideration. METHOD: A thorough literature search of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library was conducted to identify studies comparing the outcomes of VS and CVG surgery in MFS patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale evaluation scheme was used to assess the methodological quality of the included articles. Data were extracted from reports and analyzed using Revman 5.0, supplied by Cochrane collaboration. RESULT: Six clinical trials incorporating 539 patients were included. Compared to CVG, VS surgery was associated with a lower risk for re-exploration (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24-0.97; p = 0.04), thromboembolic events (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.57; p = 0.004) and endocarditis (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.94; p = 0.04). Despite an inherent incidence of aortic regurgitation, VS surgery resulted in an elevation of long-term survival rate; however, no statistical differences were found between groups with regards to reoperation (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.35-3.27; p = 0.91). CONCLUSION: Root reconstruction with VS surgery can effectively improve the prognosis of MFS patients and provide a promising alternative for surgical treatment. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to the retrospective nature of the included studies; large-scale prospective control trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".