MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553347405 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000000364

Functional mitral stenosis following mitral valve repair

2016· review· en· W2553347405 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Chan, Thierry Mesana, Subodh Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFunctional mitral regurgitationMitral valve repairMitral regurgitationCardiologyStenosisInternal medicineMitral valveFunctional impairmentSurgeryHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes the evidence describing functional mitral stenosis (MS) following surgical mitral valve repair. RECENT FINDINGS: Functional MS is an evolving concept and has been implicated in the repair of functional and organic mitral regurgitation. Following repair of functional mitral regurgitation, an elevation in peak transmitral gradient and pulmonary artery pressure has been observed under physiologic stress. These changes have been associated with worse functional status early after restrictive annuloplasty. Following repair of organic mitral regurgitation, functional MS has also been observed and appears associated with worse functional status late after surgery. SUMMARY: Because repair of functional mitral regurgitation commonly involves restrictive annuloplasty, the issue of functional MS must be weighed against the benefits and durability of repair. Functional MS following repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation, however, may be modifiable. Research evaluating various repair techniques and their impact on functional MS following repair of organic is ongoing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.046
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207