Aortic root enlargement versus stentless valve implantation for avoidance of patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with small aortic root: protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Avoiding patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) in patients with small aortic annulus (SAA) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) is still a challenging surgical problem. Among surgical options available, aortic root enlargement (ARE) and stentless valve implantation (SVI) are the two most commonly used strategies. This systematic review will be conducted searching for superiority evidence based on comparative studies between these two options. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review will include all relevant articles published from 1 January 1946 to 31 March 2024, with available full texts from Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases, without any language restriction. Observational studies and randomised controlled trials comparing surgical results of ARE versus SVI for AVR in patients with small aortic root will be screened. Studies will be classified into three groups: group 1 for studies that reported SVI or other tissue valve outcomes without comparing them with ARE outcomes; group 2 for studies that reported ARE outcomes without comparing them with SVI outcomes; and group 3 for studies that compared ARE outcomes with SVI outcomes. The quality of the evidence of each study will be evaluated according to Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because no primary data are collected. The findings will be presented at scientific conferences and/or reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO, CRD42023383793.
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 | 0.046 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.005 |
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".