The Ross procedure is an excellent operation in non-repairable aortic regurgitation: insights and techniques
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ross procedure is the best operation to treat aortic stenosis (AS) in young and middle-aged adults. However, its role in non-repairable aortic regurgitation (AR) remains debated since many historical series have reported an increased risk of pulmonary autograft dilatation and subsequent need for reintervention in these patients. Some have attributed these findings to an unrecognized and poorly characterized inherited genetic defect that prevents adaptive remodelling of the pulmonary autograft. Herein, we review the contemporary evidence surrounding the use of the Ross procedure in young adults with AR and put forth the argument that with proper technical refinements, the Ross procedure may still be the best operation to treat these patients. We believe that by tailoring the operation to the patient's anatomy and ensuring strict postoperative blood pressure control, one can achieve excellent results with the Ross procedure, including in this challenging patient population.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it