MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanism and Implications of the Tricuspid Regurgitation

2017· review· en· W2735503437 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRegurgitation (circulation)CardiologyGuidelinePercutaneousTricuspid valveInternal medicineHeart failureTricuspid Valve InsufficiencySurgeryIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tricuspid valve was virtually ignored for a long time in the past. However, significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) often accompanies left-side heart valve pathology and does not always reverse with its correction. If left untreated, TR can progress and result in progressive right ventricular failure. Current guideline recommendations still hold minor differences. Nevertheless, there is a consensus to operate on patients with severe TR undergoing left-sided valve surgery (class I) or those with mild to moderate TR with a dilated annulus (≥40 or ≥21 mm 2 , Class IIa). However, in case of the primary TR, surgical options is limited by a relatively high risk of mortality and morbidity. For these patients, new percutaneous approaches are becoming available but no long-term data are still available. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the epidemiological and pathophysiological aspects of TR, and the current and future directions of therapy.

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.

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 (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.026
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.294 · 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