MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200000076 · doi:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab083

Management of mitral stenosis: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations

2021· review· en· W4200000076 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineMEDLINECochrane LibrarySystematic reviewStenosisMedical diagnosisPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineMeta-analysisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of guidelines exist with recommendations for diagnosis and management of mitral stenosis (MS). We systematically reviewed existing guidelines for diagnosis and management of MS, highlighting their similarities and differences, in order to guide clinical decision-making. We searched national and international guidelines in MEDLINE and EMBASE (5/4/2011-5/9/2021), the Guidelines International Network, Guideline Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, and websites of relevant organizations. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and the full text of potentially relevant articles where needed. Selected guidelines were assessed for rigor of development; only guidelines with Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument score >50% were included in the final analysis. Four guidelines were retained for analysis. There was consensus for percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy as first-line treatment of symptomatic severe rheumatic MS with suitable anatomy. In patients with unfavourable anatomy, surgical intervention should be considered. Exercise testing is indicated if discrepancy exists between symptoms and echocardiographic measurements. There was no clear divide between rheumatic MS and degenerative MS for their respective diagnoses and management. Pregnancy in severe MS is discouraged and the stenosis should be treated before conception. Long-term antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for patients with rheumatic MS. Recommendations for the management of patients with mixed valvular diseases are lacking.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.403
GPT teacher head0.640
Teacher spread0.237 · 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