Supporting the Ross procedure: preserving root physiology while mitigating autograft dilatation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this article is to describe the optimized approach to nonrepairable aortic valve disease in young adults with a Ross procedure, while preserving the dynamic physiology of the aortic root. RECENT FINDINGS: As the techniques for supporting pulmonary autografts continue to be refined, and the applicability of the Ross procedure continues to expand, an assessment of the various techniques based on aortic root physiology is warranted. Semi-resorbable scaffolds show promise in ovine models for improving the Ross procedure. Recent long-term outcomes for the Dacron inclusion technique in comparison to more physiologic methods of support emphasize the importance of balancing the prevention of early dilatation with the preservation of root haemodynamics. As this review will synthesize, the dynamic physiology of the root may be preserved even in patients at a higher risk of autograft dilatation. SUMMARY: The favourable long-term outcomes of the Ross procedure can be partly attributed to the ability of the autograft to restore dynamism to the neoaortic root. Patient-specific modifications that respect root physiology can tailor the Ross procedure to address each patient's risk factors for early dilatation and late failure. As such, the Ross procedure should be recognized as an increasingly favourable solution for a wide spectrum of nonpreservable aortic valve disease in young adults.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".