MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048850305 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2020.00139

Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Intervention: Coaptation Devices

2020· review· en· W3048850305 on OpenAlex

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

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFundación Alfonso Martín Escudero
KeywordsMedicineTricuspid valveCardiologyRegurgitation (circulation)Internal medicineMitraClipPercutaneousSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI) has recently emerged as an alternative for the treatment of severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Multiple percutaneous devices have been developed in the last decade with promising early results. Among them, the coaptation devices are designed to reduce TR severity by valve leaflet plication or occupying the regurgitant orifice with a spacer. To date, the MitraClip/TriClip devices (Abbott, Santa Clara, CA, USA), the PASCAL system (Edwards Lifesciencies, Irvine, CA, USA), and the FORMA device (Edwards Lifesciencies, Irvine, CA, USA) have been used as coaptation devices for treating severe TR. The present document aimed to review the clinical evidence on coaptation devices in the field of TTVI, describing its design characteristics, main procedural steps, and early and mid-term outcomes.

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 score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.030
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.319 · 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