Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims.Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is considered an effective option in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and contraindications to long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy.However, there are some concerns about safety of currently available devices.Our aim is to provide an initial assessment on safety and efficacy of the novel LAA closure Ultraseal device in patients with NVAF and contraindications to long-term OAC therapy. Methods and Results.Twelve consecutive patients with NVAF undergoing Ultraseal device implantation between July 2016 and March 2017 were included.All patients performed transesophageal echocardiography and computed tomography angiography prior to LAA closure.Procedural success was achieved in all patients except one who experienced incorrect device deployment but with complete LAA closure.Procedure duration halved from first to last procedure performed.No adverse events, including pericardial effusion, were observed during index hospitalization.At mean follow-up (168±84 days) all patients were alive and free from major bleedings and ischaemic strokes.Conclusions.Our results suggest that the Ultraseal device is a safe and feasible option for LAA occlusion.Notably, the learning curve in this single-center experience was fast, paralleled by extremely low complication rates.These results should be considered hypothesis generating and larger studies are mandatory. C2
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.386 | 0.121 |
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".