Is there a problem with respect? Risk of neochordal rupture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we summarize the history of mitral valve repair, discuss the broad principles of neochord preparation and implantation, and highlight comparative outcomes between mitral valve repair strategies while focusing on the risk of neochordal rupture. RECENT FINDINGS: There have been several recent studies comparing outcomes been leaflet-resection and nonresection, neochord-based mitral valve repair. Operative mortality was very low regardless of repair strategy; however, the rate of mitral valve reoperation is lower in those that undergo a neochord-based repair with overall lower mean mitral gradients postrepair. The introduction of minimally invasive approaches to mitral valve repair has preferentially favored an increase in neochord-based repair, given the technical simplicity compared with resection-based approaches. In very rare cases, neochord rupture can occur, likely secondary to a combination of chordal calcification and mechanical stress. SUMMARY: The method of performing mitral valve repair with neochord implantation has demonstrated superior durability over leaflet resection approaches with equivalent operative outcomes. Although the risk of neochord rupture exists, it is exceedingly rare, and should not be considered a limitation to a neochord-based mitral valve repair. Recurrent mitral regurgitation secondary to neochord rupture is incredibly rare; however, regular echocardiographic evaluation of these patients appears warranted, especially when follow-up extends over 10 years.
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) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".