MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922229775 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1900486

A Fully Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device — Final Report

2019· article· en· W2922229775 on OpenAlexaff
Mandeep R. Mehra, Nir Uriel, Yoshifumi Naka, Joseph C. Cleveland, M. Yuzefpolskaya, Christopher T. Salerno, Mary Norine Walsh, Carmelo A. Milano, Chetan B. Patel, Steven W. Hutchins, John Ransom, Gregory A. Ewald, Akinobu Itoh, Nirav Raval, Scott Silvestry, Rebecca Cogswell, Ranjit John, Arvind Bhimaraj, Brian A. Bruckner, Brian D. Lowes, John Um, Valluvan Jeevanandam, Gabriel Sayer, Abeel A. Mangi, Ezequiel Molina, Farooq H. Sheikh, Keith D. Aaronson, Francis D. Pagani, William Cotts, Antone Tatooles, Ashok Babu, Don Chomsky, Jason N. Katz, P. Tessmann, David A. Dean, Arun Krishnamoorthy, Joyce Chuang, Ia Topuria, Poornima Sood, Daniel J. Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsAxial-flow pumpMedicineCentrifugal pumpVentricular assist deviceStroke (engine)Relative riskSurgeryConfidence intervalDestination therapyCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failureImpellerReciprocating pumpMechanical engineeringVariable displacement pumpEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In two interim analyses of this trial, patients with advanced heart failure who were treated with a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device were less likely to have pump thrombosis or nondisabling stroke than were patients treated with a mechanical-bearing axial-flow left ventricular assist device. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with advanced heart failure to receive either the centrifugal-flow pump or the axial-flow pump irrespective of the intended goal of use (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). The composite primary end point was survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. The principal secondary end point was pump replacement at 2 years. RESULTS: This final analysis included 1028 enrolled patients: 516 in the centrifugal-flow pump group and 512 in the axial-flow pump group. In the analysis of the primary end point, 397 patients (76.9%) in the centrifugal-flow pump group, as compared with 332 (64.8%) in the axial-flow pump group, remained alive and free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device at 2 years (relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.91; P<0.001 for superiority). Pump replacement was less common in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (12 patients [2.3%] vs. 57 patients [11.3%]; relative risk, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.38; P<0.001). The numbers of events per patient-year for stroke of any severity, major bleeding, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage were lower in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced heart failure, a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device was associated with less frequent need for pump replacement than an axial-flow device and was superior with respect to survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. (Funded by Abbott; MOMENTUM 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224755.).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1,260
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207