MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021996435 · doi:10.1111/echo.14663

Hemodynamic principles of prosthetic aortic valve evaluation in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era

2020· review· en· W3021996435 on OpenAlex
Amr E. Abbas, Ramy Mando, George Hanzel, James A. Goldstein, Francis Shannon, Philippe Pîbarot

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEchocardiography · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegurgitation (circulation)HemodynamicsProsthesisCardiologyMedicineInternal medicineAortic valveStenosisAortic valve replacementValve replacementHeart valveAortic valve stenosisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluating the hemodynamic performance of aortic valve prostheses has relied primarily on echocardiography. This involves calculating the trans-prosthetic valve mean gradient (MG) and aortic valve area (AVA), and assessing for valvular and paravalvular regurgitation in a fashion similar to the native aortic valve. In conjunction with other echocardiographic and nonechocardiographic parameters, MG and AVA are used to distinguish between prosthesis stenosis, prosthesis patient mismatch, pressure recovery, increased flow, and measurement errors. This review will discuss the principles and limitations of echocardiographic evaluation of aortic valve prosthesis following surgical, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement and in comparison to invasive hemodynamics through illustrative clinical cases.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.023
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it