MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286495740 · doi:10.1093/icvts/ivac200

Periareolar endoscopic minimally invasive cardiac surgery: postoperative scar assessment analysis

2022· article· en· W4286495740 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

VenueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatent foramen ovaleSurgeryMitral valve repairAblationMitral valveCardiologyPercutaneous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The standard approach for minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) for repair of the atrioventricular valves is a right lateral minithoracotomy. In this study, we report our experience with a periareolar endoscopic approach, which aims at an optimal cosmetic outcome while preserving optimal clinical outcomes. METHODS: All patients underwent periareolar endoscopic MICS using high-definition three-dimensional endoscopic visualization without additional rib-spreading. Patients presented with degenerative and/or functional mitral regurgitation. Patients undergoing concomitant tricuspid valve surgery, cryo-ablation, patent foramen ovale closure, left atrial appendage occlusion and/or left atrial myxoma extirpation were included. This descriptive article analysed the aesthetic and functional outcome of the periareolar scar using 5 most common and clinimetrically sound scar assessment scales. For statistical analysis of the scar assessment grading scales, box and whisker plots were calculated depicting median, interquartile range and high and low range data points. RESULTS: Median scar assessment scale scores for n = 100 male patients (response rate 100/109; 91.7%) were 2 [1, 4], 7.5 [6, 9], 11 [8, 14], 3 [2, 3] and 10 [9, 11] for the Vancouver scar scale, Manchester scar scale, patient scar assessment scale, Stony brook scar evaluation scale and Dermatology Quality of Life Index scale, respectively. Ninety-seven patients received mitral valve repair, 7 mitral valve replacement, whereas 5 had left atrial myxoma extirpation. Concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty, cryo-ablation, left atrial appendage occlusion and patent foramen ovale closure surgery were performed in 12, 29, 5 and 8 patients, respectively. Median procedure, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were 169.5 [154.3, 189.3], 111.5 [97, 127], and 68.5 [58.8, 81] min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Periareolar endoscopic MICS is safe and cosmetically appealing. It is feasible and allows for complex mitral valve repair, mitral valve replacement and concomitant surgery. Data from 5 scar assessment scales suggest that this technique delivers patient-satisfying results regarding functional and cosmetic outcomes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.278 · 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