SCAI Guidelines for the Management of Patent Foramen Ovale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a vestigial congenital cardiovascular structure present in around 25% of adults. In most cases, PFO is entirely benign and requires no treatment. However, it may cause serious complications under certain circumstances. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) aim to support patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders in decisions about management of PFO. Methods: SCAI convened a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Evidence Foundation, a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, provided methodological support for the guideline-development process. Following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, the guideline panel formulated and prioritized clinical questions in population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) format. A separate technical review team of clinical and methodological experts conducted systematic reviews of the evidence, synthesized data, and graded the certainty of the evidence across outcomes. The guideline panel then reconvened to formulate recommendations and supporting remarks informed by the results of the technical review and additional contextual factors described in the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework. Results: The panel agreed on 13 recommendations to address variations on 5 clinical scenarios. Conclusions: Key recommendations address patient selection for PFO closure in the prevention of recurrent PFO-associated stroke, including populations not commonly included in randomized studies, and scenarios where the PFO closure might serve a role in the prevention of other outcomes such as migraine headaches and decompression illness. The panel has also identified future research priorities to advance the field.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".