MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923847733 · doi:10.15420/usc.2018.20.1

Transcatheter Edge-to-edge Repair of Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation

2019· article· en· W2923847733 on OpenAlexaff
Shu-I Lin, Mizuki Miura, Francesco Maisano, Michel Züber, Mara Gavazzoni, Edwin Ho, Alberto Pozzoli, Maurizio Taramasso

Bibliographic record

VenueUS Cardiology Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRegurgitation (circulation)Mitral regurgitationPercutaneousSurgeryCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the increasing knowledge of the long-term adverse consequence of severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR), most patients with moderate- to-severe TR are still treated conservatively because of the high risk of surgery. Percutaneous procedures have emerged as an attractive alternative treatment. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair is a validated technique to treat mitral regurgitation. In recent years, the same concept has been applied to patients with TR and prohibitive operative risk. Early trials have shown feasibility and safety. More clinical experiences and long-term results are still being gathered. In this article, we provide an overview of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair and look at the current evidence and clinical results regarding procedure.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUS Cardiology ReviewSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207