Stentless valved composite graft for replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conduits with biological valves are rarely used for aortic root replacement because of technical problems when degeneration of the valve prosthesis requires reoperation. A composite graft as described could likely avoid this problem. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between November 1998 and November 1999, 28 consecutive patients underwent replacement of the ascending aorta and aortic valve with a stentless valved composite graft. The indication for surgery was aneurysm of the ascending aorta (26 patients) and aortic dissection (2 patients). The composite graft was assembled during surgery using a stentless porcine aortic bioprosthesis (Toronto SPV) and a woven polyester collagen-coated vascular prosthesis (InterGard). RESULTS: There was no hospital mortality. Echocardiographic evaluation before discharge showed excellent hemodynamics with a mean transvalvular gradient of 8.5 mmHg (standard deviation I3.0 mmHg) and no regurgitation across the valve. Within a follow-up period of up to one year there was one late death because of a cerebral hemorrhage under anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: The valved composite graft described offers the excellent hemodynamic performance of a stentless biological valve and is expected to avoid major technical difficulties should later replacement of the biological prosthesis due to structural failure become necessary, because only the valve cusps need to be resected, leaving the tube graft untouched.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".