Population Study of Sex-Based Outcomes After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is a key strategy for the treatment of aortic valve disease. However, studies have involved primarily male patients, and whether the benefits of this approach can be extrapolated to female patients is unclear. Methods: Clinical and administrative datasets for 12,207 patients undergoing isolated SAVR in Ontario from 2008 to 2019 were linked. Male and female patients were balanced using inverse probability treatment weighting. Mortality, endocarditis, and major hemorrhagic and thrombotic events, as well as 2 composite outcomes-major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (MACCE) and patient-derived adverse cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events (PACE)-and their component events, were compared in the weighted groups with a stratified log-rank test. Results: = 0.015). No statistically significant differences were seen in any of the other secondary outcomes between sexes. Conclusions: This population health study demonstrated that survival did not differ between male and female patients undergoing SAVR. Significant sex-related differences were found in the risk of heart failure and new-onset dialysis, but these findings should be considered exploratory and require further study.
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) | 0.001 | 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".