MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P3524Outcome after ross procedure in adult patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and microsimulation

2018· article· en· W2904269951 on OpenAlexaff
Serena Sibilio, Alex Koziarz, G. McClure, Ali Alsagheir, Hatim Alraddadi, A. Lengyel, Seleman Reza, Kevin J. Um, Pablo Mendoza, S Mclsaac, Domenico Paparella, I. El-Hamamsy, Dominic Parry, Emilie P. Belley‐Côté, Richard Whitlock

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of WaterlooPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisMicrosimulationIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Contemporary data suggest that aortic valve replacement with biological and mechanical prostheses reduces life expectancy in non-elderly adults compared to age and gender matched controls. The Ross procedure may yield outcomes more similar to an age- and gender- matched general population. Purpose: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the risk of adverse events and event-free life expectancy after the Ross procedure in adult patients. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to June 2017 for reports evaluating the Ross procedure in patients ≥16 years of age. We performed screening, full-text assessment, risk-of-bias evaluation and data collection independently and in duplicate. We pooled data using a random effects model for the outcome-based analysis. We used a microsimulation model to evaluate age- and gender-specific life expectancy. Results: We pooled data from 66 articles, totalling 21348 participants in 20 countries. We judged thirty-seven papers to be at low risk of bias, 21 at high risk and 8 at unclear risk. Twenty-eight studies reported on early mortality (N=10041), with a rate of 2.47% (95% CI [1.89, 3.13]). At a mean of 7.2 years of follow-up (N=7635), we found a mortality risk of 5.89% (95% CI [4.74; 7.15%]) based on 33 studies. The rate of early clinically significant bleeding was 1.36% (95% CI [0.37, 2,96]), 13 studies (N=4217); re-exploration for bleeding 4.58% (95% CI [3.10, 6.32]), 20 studies (N=7563); clinically significant bleeding occurring from 30 days until a mean of 7.1 years post-operative was 0.54%, (95% CI[0.24,0.97]), 10 studies (N=3634). At a mean of 6.9 years of follow-up, 29 studies reported on aortic (N=7600) and pulmonary re-interventions (N=7087), the re-intervention rate of any operated valve site was 7.85% (95% CI [5.69, 10.32]) based on 25 studies (N=7767): 5.75% (95% CI [4.41, 7.25]) at the aortic site and 3.53% (95% CI [2.76, 4.40]) at the pulmonary site. The risk of valve thrombosis was 0.28% (95% CI [0.15, 0.46]) at 7.6 years, 15 studies (N=4377); peripheral embolism, 0.27% (95% CI [0.15, 0.43]) at 6.4 years, 18 studies (N=5091); and stroke 0.91% (95% CI [0.65, 1.22]) at 6.5 years, 19 studies (N=5506). We present microsimulation-based estimates of age-specific life-expectancy in Figure 1.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.043
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207