MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410186732 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-097759

Sex-based outcomes of mitral surgery for ischaemic mitral regurgitation: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4410186732 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kenza Rahmouni, Nicolas Gauthier, Navneet Kang, Pierre Voisine, Jodi D. Edwards, Tim Ramsay, Vincent Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitral regurgitationMeta-analysisMEDLINEPublication biasInternal medicineSystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialCardiac surgeryHeart failureCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Patients with ischaemic mitral regurgitation (MR) have markedly increased cardiovascular mortality compared with those with primary MR. The sex-based prognosis of patients with ischaemic MR undergoing mitral surgery remains unclear. The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate long-term mortality, reoperation, heart failure rehospitalisation and MR recurrence in women who undergo mitral valve surgery for chronic ischaemic MR, compared with men. Methods and analysis The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be searched for studies reporting surgical outcomes for ischaemic MR. Studies published before 10 June 2024 and those stratifying outcomes by sex will be included. The primary outcome of this systematic review is long-term (≥1 year) mortality following mitral surgery. Secondary outcomes include operative mortality, mitral valve reintervention, heart failure rehospitalisation and MR recurrence, as assessed by echocardiography. Risk of bias will be ascertained with the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity will be assessed using Higgin’s I2statistic. If the included studies demonstrate adequate homogeneity in their design and comparator, meta-analyses with a random-effects model will be conducted to combine estimates. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review uses data from previously published studies and does not involve interaction with human subjects or access to individual patient data. Therefore, ethical approval is not required for this study. The findings from this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and various media, including but not limited to, conferences, congresses and symposia. Trial registration number In accordance with the guidelines, our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 5 July 2024 and was last updated on 4 April 2025 (Registration number: CRD42024560892).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.032
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.297
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→