Transcatheter treatment for tricuspid valve disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 4% of subjects aged 75 years or more have clinically relevant tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Primary TR results from anatomical abnormality of the tricuspid valve apparatus and is observed in only 8-10% of the patients with tricuspid valve disease. Secondary TR is more common and arises as a result of annular dilation caused by right ventricular enlargement and dysfunction as a consequence of pulmonary hypertension, often caused by left-sided heart disease or atrial fibrillation. Irrespective of its aetiology, TR leads to volume overload and increased wall stress, both of which negatively contribute to detrimental remodelling and worsening TR. This vicious circle translates into impaired survival and increased heart failure symptoms in patients with and without reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Interventions to correct TR are underutilised in daily clinical practice owing to increased surgical risk and late patient presentation. The recently introduced transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions aim to address this unmet need. Dedicated expertise and an interdisciplinary Heart Team evaluation are essential to integrate these new techniques successfully and select patients. The present article proposes a standardised approach to evaluate patients with TR who may be candidates for transcatheter interventions. In addition, a state-of-the-art review of the available transcatheter therapies, the main criteria for patient and device selection, and information concerning the remaining uncertainties are provided.
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) | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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 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".