Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium Definitions for Tricuspid Regurgitation and Trial Endpoints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in the pathophysiology, etiology, management, and outcomes of patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has grown in the wake of multiple natural history studies showing progressively worse outcomes associated with increasing TR severity, even after adjusting for multiple comorbidities. Historically, isolated tricuspid valve surgery has been associated with high in-hospital mortality rates, leading to the development of transcatheter treatment options. The aim of this first Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document is to standardize definitions of disease etiology and severity, as well as endpoints for trials that aim to address the gaps in our knowledge related to identification and management of patients with TR. Standardizing endpoints for trials should provide consistency and enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. A second Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document will focus on further defining trial endpoints and will discuss trial design options.
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 | 0.331 | 0.418 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".