The Forgotten, Not Studied or Not Valorized Tricuspid Valve: The Transcatheter Revolution Is Coming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tricuspid valve (TV) has been known as the forgotten valve. However, considering recent information from scientific studies, this nomenclature may need to be adjusted for the valve, which also needs to be better studied and understood. For decades, tricuspid regurgitation (TR) was not fully appreciated and was never the priority. However, studies have revealed that such pathology is related to a possible negative impact on prognosis of patients. Severe TR is a predictor of higher mortality. For the treatment of TR, repair or valve replacement can be performed. Repair techniques can be performed on the annulus (suture annuloplasty or ring implant), on the leaflets (e.g. triangular resection), on the cords (transfers or new cords) and on the papillary muscles (e.g. sliding technique). The anatomical characteristics of the TV determine the repair technique to be used. In some cases, valve repair is not possible and/or not indicated and valve replacement is selected based on the strategy. Nowadays transcatheter therapies have been used and studied. The main transcatheter strategies for the treatment of TR are based on reduction of the annulus (Cardioband, Trialign, TriCinch, Millipede and TRAIPTA), improvement of the leaflet coaptation (Mitraclip, FORMA device, PASCAL system, and TV occluder), reduction of the reflux for the vena cava system (Tric valve and Sapien valve implant), and valve implants (Navigate, Trisol, Sapien, Melody). In this context, there are still other devices (such as Tricentro, Pasta, etc.) being developed and tested throughout several phases of research. In the future, improved knowledge of the TV and the evolution of transcatheter treatments will alter the history of the TV. The transcatheter revolution is coming!
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".