MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361299162 · doi:10.1177/15569845231161287

The Use of Three-Dimensional Printing in Cardiac Structural Disease: A Review

2023· review· en· W4361299162 on OpenAlexaff
Gabrielle Hornstein, Calvin Diep, Jean‐Bernard Masson, Jeannot Potvin, Jean‐François Gobeil, Nicolas Noiseux, Jessica Forcillo

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProcess (computing)Psychological interventionMedical physicsDiseaseSurgeryPhysical therapyComputer scienceNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional printing (3DP), or additive fabrication, is a process in which a physical 3D model is created using a multitude of 2-dimensional images. This process has been applied to numerous surgical subspecialties with growing interest for the use of 3DP in adult structural heart disease. This scoping review evaluates the use of 3DP in transcatheter and surgical aortic and mitral valve interventions as well as left atrial appendage occlusion in terms of its practical and clinical application. METHODS: Articles were identified through PubMed and Embase using MeSH search terms as well as independent searches. A total of 645 articles were screened, and 37 were retained for qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Operative planning was coded in 100% of articles, complication prevention in 43%, medical education in 5.4%, patient education in 0%, and simulation in 5.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The main uses of 3DP in acquired structural heart disease are centered around operative planning and complication prevention, with moderate use regarding surgical simulation and infrequent use regarding medical and/or patient education. Although patient anatomy varies greatly, deploying 3DP as a large-scale tool remains a possibility. The more 3D models are made, the more can be learned about demographic subsets of patient populations. Due to the lack of standard operating procedures for the creation of 3DP models, the cost-effectiveness of these models is hard to determine and likely center specific. More research into this facet could inform centers that wish to implement this tool.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular SurgerySame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207