Cardiac computed tomography for prosthetic heart valve assessment. An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR), the North American Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI), the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prosthetic heart valve (PHV) dysfunction is increasingly seen due to the increase in the number of PHV that are being implanted worldwide. Cardiac CT imaging has emerged as a valuable tool to assess PHVs and determine the cause of dysfunction. This consensus document first summarizes the available techniques for PHV assessment. Then the use of CT in PHV (dys)function assessment is discussed in detail including consensus statements for correct indications and patient selection for CT assessment of PHVs, image acquisition, reconstruction and measurement protocols and how to interpret and report the CT findings for specific types of PHV dysfunction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
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".