Neurological Injury in Intermediate‐Risk Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The application of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to intermediate-risk patients is a controversial issue. Of concern, neurological injury in this group remains poorly defined. Among high-risk and inoperable patients, subclinical injury is reported on average in 75% undergoing the procedure. Although this attendant risk may be acceptable in higher-risk patients, it may not be so in those of lower risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: prosthesis were prospectively studied. Patients were of intermediate surgical risk, with a mean±standard deviation Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 5.1±2.5% and a EuroSCORE II of 4.8±2.4%; participant age was 82±7 years. Clinically apparent injury was assessed by serial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale assessments, Montreal Cognitive Assessments (MoCA), and with the Confusion Assessment Method. These identified 1 (2.5%) minor stroke, 1 (2.5%) episode of postoperative delirium, and 2 patients (5%) with significant postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Subclinical neurological injury was assessed using brain magnetic resonance imaging, including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences preprocedure and at 3±1 days postprocedure. This identified 68 new DWI lesions present in 60% of participants, with a median±interquartile range of 1±3 lesions/patient and volumes of infarction of 24±19 μL/lesion and 89±218 μL/patient. DWI lesions were associated with a statistically significant reduction in early cognition (mean ΔMoCA -3.5±1.7) without effect on cognition, quality of life, or functional capacity at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Objectively measured subclinical neurological injuries remain a concern in intermediate-risk patients undergoing TAVI and are likely to manifest with early neurocognitive changes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au. Australian & New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12613000083796.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".