MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415593313 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2509766

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at 7 Years

2025· article· en· W4415593313 on OpenAlexaff
Martin B. Leon, Michael Mack, Philippe Pîbarot, Rebecca T. Hahn, Vinod H. Thourani, S. Kodali, Philippe Généreux, Samir Kapadia, David J. Cohen, Stuart Pocock, Yiran Zhang, Molly Szerlip, Julien Ternacle, S. Chris Malaisrie, Wilson Y. Szeto, Mark J. Russo, Vasilis Babaliaros, Tamim Nazif, John G. Webb, Raj Makkar

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's HospitalUniversité Laval
FundersEdwards Lifesciences
KeywordsValve replacementStenosisDiseaseComplicationAortic valve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Five-year data from the PARTNER 3 trial showed that among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis, outcomes were similar among patients who had undergone transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and those who had undergone surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term assessments of clinical outcomes and valve durability are needed. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo transfemoral TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a nonhierarchical composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the procedure, the valve, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite of death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days related to the procedure, the valve, or heart failure, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, valve-durability, and health-status end points were assessed through 7 years. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization. In the analysis of the first primary end point, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the incidence of an end-point event was 34.6% with TAVR and 37.2% with surgery (difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.0 to 3.7). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.30). In the TAVR and surgery groups, respectively, the Kaplan-Meier estimates for the incidence of components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 19.5% and 16.8%; stroke, 8.5% and 8.1%; and rehospitalization, 20.6% and 23.5%. The mean (±SD) aortic-valve gradients assessed by echocardiography at 7 years were 13.1±8.5 mm Hg after TAVR and 12.1±6.3 mm Hg after surgery. The percentage of bioprosthetic valves that failed was 6.9% in the TAVR group and 7.5% in the surgery group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis, no significant differences with respect to two primary composite end points involving death, stroke, and rehospitalization were observed at 7 years between those who had undergone TAVR and those who had undergone surgery. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations50
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of Medicine→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→