Thirty years of experience with full-root Ross procedure in the pediatric population—Timing matters!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The optimal timing of Ross procedure in pediatric patients remains unclear. We aimed to analyze how age, diagnosis, autograft support, and Konno-incision impact outcome. Methods: Patients (0-18 years) undergoing primary/secondary Ross/Ross-Konno from August 1993 to November 2023 were included. Mortality, autograft replacement rate, and greater than mild autograft regurgitation were analyzed in the full cohort and subgroups (age, diagnosis, primary/secondary Ross, Ross/Ross-Konno, autograft support) using time-to-event methods. Propensity-score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics of patients undergoing supported/nonsupported Ross procedures. Results: = .03). Matched pairs (supported vs nonsupported Ross, n = 30 each) did not show differences in primary outcomes. Conclusions: The Ross procedure in pediatric patients demonstrated good long-term outcomes. Mortality risk is greater in neonates/infants and patients with isolated aortic stenosis. Adolescent patients/patients undergoing secondary Ross procedures were associated with greater autograft replacement rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".