Left ventricular remodeling after mini‐mitral repair—does the complexity of mitral disease matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Degenerative mitral valve (MV) regurgitation (MR) is associated with left ventricular (LV) dilatation. Surgical treatment of MR has been shown to favorably affect LV remodeling. We prospectively compared the long‐term echocardiographic outcomes of LV remodeling following mini‐mitral repair for simple versus complex MV disease. Methods We prospectively followed up 203 consecutive patients who underwent mini‐MV repair for severe degenerative MR over a 9‐year period. Simple disease (n = 122 patients: posterior leaflet prolapse) was compared to complex disease (n = 81 patients: anterior, bilateral or commissural prolapse). Baseline demographics were similar between simple and complex groups (age: 63 ± 13 years vs 60 ± 15 years; p = .2; sex: 71% male vs 72% male, p = 1; preoperative MR grade ≥ 3+: 100%; n = 122; vs 100%; n = 81; p = 1), respectively. Results Preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly lower in the complex group as compared to the simple group (57.2% simple vs 56.0% complex; p = .04). Preoperative LV end‐systolic diameter (LVESD: 35 mm simple vs 36 mm complex, p < .05) and LV end‐diastolic diameter (LVEDD: 50 mm simple vs 51 mm complex; p < .05), as well as LV mass index (99.5 g/m 2 vs 102.4 g/m 2 ; p = .06) were larger in the complex group. Despite different baseline characteristics of LV function and geometry, both groups had similar remodeling of LV after MV repair. Conclusions Patients with complex MV disease are referred late for surgical repair, causing LV function and dimensions to never fully recover. This suggests that earlier referral (before LV changes and potentially before symptoms) may be the preferred approach in those with complex disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".