Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose is to provide a broad overview of the current state of knowledge of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of rheumatic heart disease (RHD). RECENT FINDINGS: Studies on pathogenesis of RHD have focused on autoimmunity because of molecular mimicry between the streptococcal M antigen α-helical coiled-coil structure and sarcomeric proteins such as myosin and tropomyosin. More recently, nonsarcomeric autoantigens, endothelial injury and the innate immune system have been proposed to play key roles in the pathogenesis of RHD. In the 2015 revised Jones Criteria, the importance of echocardiography and subclinical carditis in the diagnosis of acute rheumatic fever is highlighted. Experimental studies with targeted anti-inflammatory therapeutics have been largely unsuccessful and the only established treatment is still lifelong antibiotics. Efforts to improve patient selection and outcomes with percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty are ongoing. With regard to surgical management, several groups have demonstrated excellent operative and midterm outcomes from valve repair as opposed to valve replacement. SUMMARY: There are still many unanswered questions regarding RHD pathogenesis. The only accepted medical treatment is still long-term antibiotic therapy, whereas advances in mitral repair techniques have led to successful durable repairs being performed in high-volume, expert centers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".