Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this article is to review the contemporary evidence surrounding the use of the Ross procedure in young and middle-aged adults and to identify the subset patients who are most likely to derive a benefit from this operation. RECENT FINDINGS: In appropriately selected young and middle-aged adults undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), the Ross procedure is currently the only operation that can restore long-term survival that is equivalent to that of the age-matched healthy general population. The ideal patient for the Ross procedure is a young, otherwise healthy adult with aortic stenosis and a small or normal size aortic annulus. In addition, this operation is particularly valuable in women contemplating pregnancy and patients with high level of physical activity, as well as those who wish to avoid the burden of lifelong anticoagulation. When carried out in expert centers with adequate surgical volumes, the Ross procedure is associated with superior long-term outcomes compared with prosthetic AVR, with minimal cost in terms of early morbidity and mortality. SUMMARY: Despite the expanding body of evidence demonstrating its long-term superiority over conventional prosthetic AVR in appropriately selected patients, the Ross operation remains largely underused. This situation mandates careful reexamination of current practice guidelines.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".