Aortic Valve-in-Valve in Externally Mounted Bioprosthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Aortic valve-in-valve implantation for prosthetic valve dysfunction is a good alternative to reoperative valve replacement. There are some limitations to this approach including the risk of coronary occlusion, patient prosthesis mismatch, and valve malposition. The incidence of coronary occlusion is higher in aortic valve-in-valve than de novo aortic stenosis cases. Multiple factors can contribute to this complication, and the type of bioprosthesis has been implicated. METHODS: We examined our experience of 80 aortic valve-in-valve cases with internally and externally mounted leaflet valves. RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in 95% of cases with an overall 30-day mortality of 1.3%. Clinical and procedural outcomes were similar in the both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that aortic valve-in-valve implantation can be safely performed in carefully selected patient with internally and externally mounted leaflet bioprosthesis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".