Mitral regurgitation in heart failure: time for a rethink
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary (or functional) mitral regurgitation (MR) frequently accompanies heart failure syndromes and is associated with poor prognosis. 1 Initial surgical approaches 2 failed to impact on outcome in contrast with optimized medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), long-term ventricular assist devices, and cardiac transplantation. Valve surgery remains challenging in this setting, with inferior outcomes than in primary (or degenerative) MR, and the indications and choice of technique are not supported by robust evidence. Transcatheter treatment of primary and secondary MR has emerged as an alternative using a variety of approaches. Of these, the most widely adopted has been edge-to-edge repair using the MitraClip device (Abbott Vascular). However, despite application in >70 000 patients since 2003 and favourable evidence compared with surgery in patients with mainly primary MR (73%), 4 there have been no published randomized studies focusing on subjects with secondary MR. Until now.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".