Patient-reported outcome measures after minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: The benefit may be early
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimally invasive cardiac surgery is associated with reduced pain, blood loss, transfusions, and hospital length of stay, compared with full median sternotomy (FMS). 1,2long with conventional clinical outcomes, patientreported outcome measures (PROMs) are necessary to inform a patient-centered decision-making model by quantifying patient perspectives. 3ROMs provide a structured approach to define physical, mental, and emotional components of the patient experience and can help determine health-related quality of life (QoL). 1,4The UK Mini Mitral Trial assessed physical functioning and return to usual activities at postoperative week 12 in patients randomized to minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (mini-MVS) or FMS-mitral valve surgery (FMS-MVS).The results showed no difference in mean change in physical function from baseline to 12 weeks, but benefits of minimally invasive approaches may become apparent at earlier time points. 5Observational reports suggest that the benefit of mini-MVS occurs earlier than 12 weeks. 1,4This prospective study aimed to assess health-related QoL defined by PROMs in the early postoperative period for patients who underwent mini-MVS.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".