Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been effective in prohibitive/high-risk patients. Expansion toward intermediate or even low-risk patients has been proposed. A review of recent developments will help understand current trends and issues. RECENT FINDINGS: The 5-year results from the PARTNER I trial and 2-year results of the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial, together with national registries, confirmed the long-term efficacy and durability of TAVR. Studies including PARTNER II, ADVANCE, and The German Aortic Valve Registry showed short-to mid-term success in intermediate-risk patients. Comparison of balloon-expandable and self-expanding valves in the CHOICE trial associated specific outcome differences with specific valve types, suggesting a more customized approach in valve selection. Short-term results of newer-generation valves have demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy with improved designs. Studies on TAVR-specific complications, such as conduction block and arrhythmia, paravalvular aortic regurgitation, and stroke, have renewed ideas about their prognosis, treatment, and prevention. Conscious sedation percutaneous TAVR has become more popular, with excellent outcomes and improved cost savings. SUMMARY: TAVR has been accepted as an effective treatment even for intermediate-risk patients. This article aims to review the most recent results and essential issues.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.027 |
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".