Valve deterioration: A victim of construct over time?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) remains one of the most common cardiac operations performed globally on an annual basis. Biological and mechanical valves comprise the two classes of prosthetic valves available to surgeons. Biological prosthetic valves can be prone to failure and structural valve deterioration (SVD), which may necessitate reintervention. Recent literature suggests that the Trifecta heart valve is susceptible to early failure. In this retrospective study, Yount et al. use institutional data to assess the longevity of the Trifecta heart valve. The investigators included patients who had undergone sAVR and had received either a Trifecta prosthetic heart valve or a Magna/Magna Ease heart valve. While there were some baseline differences between the patient groups, the study found that those who had received a Trifecta valve had higher rates of valve failure. This is an important study that adds valuable evidence pertaining to the incidence of failure and SVD with the Trifecta heart valve. Although further studies may shed light on the precise mechanisms that drive valve failure and deterioration, surgeons should be aware of the mounting clinical data in this area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".