OP33 Treatment Of Mitral Insufficiency And Multicriteria Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Controversy regarding the efficacy of transcatheter mitral valve repair with a clip (TMVRc) in reducing the mitral regurgitation is related to the lack of solid scientific evidence. Worldwide, refusal or conditional acceptance for implementation of TMVRc, reflect ongoing uncertainty. We sought to apply a systematic multicriteria framework to ensure a fair and reasonable decision regarding the use of TMVRc in Quebec. Methods The framework included the following domains: context, quality of evidence concerning safety, efficacy and effectiveness, unmet patient needs, expected volume of patients, and impact on the health system including costs. Each domain within the framework was examined by a review of the literature and through consultations with a scientific advisory committee, a TMVRc clinical expert committee, TMVRc clinical teams, industry representatives and the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS) clinical excellence committee. Results The literature review indicated that uncertainty about the efficacy and effectiveness of TMVRc persists, particularly in the real world context, and this view was supported by scientific experts. The TMVRc clinical teams provided insight into the burden of mitral insufficiency on patients and the health system and their belief in the promise of TMVRc. They also highlighted the challenges of patient selection and organizational issues related to the introduction of TMVRc within their institutions. The advisory committee stressed the need for further evaluation prior to wide diffusion. Conclusions Using a multicriteria framework facilitated a more standardized and transparent approach to our literature review and consultations as well as to the development of the proposed recommendations. This was especially important in the context of an evaluation of a promising new approach to treat mitral valve disease with many important uncertainties. This multi-criteria approach will facilitate a more standardized process for deliberation on how new health technologies should be implemented into the Quebec health system.
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 | 0.185 | 0.229 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".