MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6979980389

ANTITHROMBOTIC THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH SURGICAL BIOPROSTHETIC AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT

2023· dissertation· en· W6979980389 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsAntithromboticRandomized controlled trialObservational studySubclinical infectionThrombosisAortic valve replacementGuidelineFibrinolytic agent
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the only life-saving treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Bioprosthetic valves are used in 90% of AVRs because they do not require lifelong anticoagulation. The major limitation of bioprosthetic valves is their limited durability compared to mechanical valves. In addition, bioprosthetic valves still carry a 2-3% risk of symptomatic valve thrombosis, stroke, and thromboembolism in the first 30 days after implantation, and a 1% annual risk thereafter. The risk of subclinical valve thrombosis is around 10% at 30 days and 25% at 1 year, and prevention of subclinical valve thrombosis is hypothesized to reduce the risk of clinical thrombotic events and perhaps even improve valve durability, although high-quality evidence is lacking. This doctoral thesis comprises 7 chapters of varied methodology that summarize the evidence behind current recommendations for antithrombotic therapy after bioprosthetic AVR, identify evidence gaps, and present the design a randomized trial that aims to address some of these evidence gaps. Chapter 1 introduces each included study with a brief summary. Chapter 2 is a narrative review summarizing guideline recommendation for antithrombotic therapy after bioprosthetic AVR and the evidence upon which they are based. Chapter 3 is an observational study describing antithrombotic prescribing practices in the VISION Cardiac Surgery cohort study. Chapter 4 is a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized studies of antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Chapter 5 is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies of subclinical valve thrombosis. Chapter 6 presents the design and rationale of a feasibility trial of direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with a new surgical bioprosthetic AVR and atrial fibrillation. Chapter 7 discusses the implications, limitations, and future avenues of the research presented in this doctoral thesis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→