MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400126453 · doi:10.17925/hi.2024.18.1.6

Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Intervention for the Treatment of Tricuspid Regurgitation with TriClip: All You Need to Know

2024· review· en· W4400126453 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart International · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Saint-Luc
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRegurgitation (circulation)Tricuspid valveCardiologyInternal medicineTricuspid Valve InsufficiencySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a common pathology in the daily practice of a cardiologist. This disease entity is associated with significant morbidity and mortality if left untreated. Classically, surgical repair or replacement were the only therapeutic options present and were often not performed due to high postprocedural mortality. Transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention has emerged as a novel and effective therapeutic option for the treatment of significant TR. Several devices have been developed with different mechanisms of action. In this review, we will provide an overview of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of TR using the TriClip device (Abbott, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.008
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.378 · 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