MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410291905 · doi:10.1016/j.shj.2025.100490

Advancing the Contemporary Multidisciplinary Heart Valve Team: Update on Priorities for Clinicians and Programs

2025· review· en· W4410291905 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Lauck, Connie J. Clark, Sophie Offen, Erin Tang, Stephanie Sellers

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Heart · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachMultidisciplinary teamHeart valveIntensive care medicineMedicineEngineering ethicsManagement scienceCardiologyEngineeringSociologyNursingSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The multidisciplinary heart team (MDT) has been foundational to the rapid advancement of treatment options for valvular heart disease (VHD). Initially designed to guide treatment decisions for patients with aortic stenosis and procedural success of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, the MDT was intended to provide a responsive mechanism to meet the needs of patients and programs. Some of the unintended consequences of guideline endorsement and regulatory requirements have diminished the perceived value and threatened the engagement of team members. To maintain its impact, the VHD MDT must evolve to reflect contemporary priorities. For patients with aortic stenosis, the concept of the MDT must expand to address the significant barriers to timely detection, diagnosis, and referral and leverage its expertise to increase program capacity to accelerate access to care. The comprehensive mitral and tricuspid valve clinical pathway is in its infancy. For this patient group, the membership of the core MDT must be strengthened by the addition of expertise to support imaging diagnostics and procedural guidance, specialty team members who can guide the individualized clinical management of complex VHD, enhanced coordination of care and patient-centered processes, and consideration of unanswered clinical concerns. A recalibrated perspective on the key principles guiding the MDT for clinicians and programs offers opportunities to make the most of lessons learned by promoting quality of care and building a VHD collective and culture that can meet patients' needs along their journey of care while prioritizing a nimble, tailored, efficient, and high-impact approach.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructural HeartSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207