Evidence Generation and Implementation of Transcatheter Interventions for Atrioventricular Valvular Heart Disease in Heart Failure: Current Status and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitral regurgitation and tricuspid regurgitation are the most common valvular heart diseases in patients with heart failure and have independent prognostic value. Transcatheter interventions are now available for the treatment of valvular heart disease, and their efficacy and safety have been tested in randomized controlled trials. However, evidence is still limited and sometimes inconclusive because several aspects of these trials limit their interpretation or consistency. These include heterogeneity in the pathogenesis and clinical characteristics of patients, the dynamic nature of secondary atrioventricular valve disease severity, the role of heart failure medications and devices, dependency on procedural results and operators' skills, smaller number of patients enrolled and the power to detect differences in trials, and limitations to use patients' reported outcomes with unblinded study protocols. These specific aspects of trials in patients with atrioventricular valve disease are reviewed in this article with a focus on possible solutions to generate further evidence for the efficacy and safety for transcatheter treatments of atrioventricular valve disease in patients with heart failure.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".