Durable mechanical circulatory support as bridge to heart transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) technology has changed over time as devices have evolved from pulsatile to continuous flow support. In this review, we discuss recent data and substantial changes to current practice as it pertains to the subject of current era durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to heart transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: The results of heart transplantation in patients bridged with durable LVAD support are satisfactory even after prolonged duration of support. Reports of recent experience with LVAD related infection suggest that this complication has limited impact on post-transplant outcomes. Important sex-related disparities continue to exist following durable LVAD implantation. Recent changes in the United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation policy have resulted in a drastic decline in the use of durable LVAD support for Bridge to Transplant in the United States. SUMMARY: Durable MCS in the form of LVAD as a BTT strategy continues to evolve over time. Optimization of its role in the treatment of end-stage heart failure, particularly in females will need to be the focus of future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".