Institutional review- Cardiac general Atrial versus biatrial approaches for cardiac myxomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myxomas are the most common primary benign tumors of the heart. The objectives of this study were to review the different surgical approaches to intracardiac myxomas and to assess the long-term prognosis of these patients. We present a retrospective review of 58 intracardiac myxomas surgically removed at the Montreal Heart Institute between September 1975 and May 2002. Nineteen male and 38 female patients with a mean age of 56 ^ 13 years were operated for cardiac myxoma. Atrial and biatrial approaches were used in 41 and 59 % of cases, respectively. The mean follow-up was 8.8 ^ 6.4 years. Supraventricular arrhythmias and conduction disturbances were the most frequent complications following surgery (39%). One patient died early from malignant arrhythmia and eight other patients succumbed during the follow-up period with two cardiac-related deaths from recurrent myxoma and endocarditis, respectively. The overall 10-year actuarial survival was 86 ^ 6%. The retrospective comparison of atrial versus biatrial approaches showed marginal difference in the procedural time and no significant difference in blood losses, transfusion requirements, length of stay, postoperative NYHA functional class and survival. Notwithstanding the approach performed, the surgical treatment of cardiac myxomas is associated with a low operative mortality and good long-term outcome. q 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".