MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Transapical aortic valve implantation - A paradigm for innovation and collaboration in modern cardiac surgery.

2012· article· en· W92827189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tristan D. Yan, Paul G. Bannon

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac surgeryPublicityPrideSurgeryGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically, cardiac surgery has been afforded tremendous visibility and publicity. The giants of the profession such as Drs. Christiaan Barnard, Walton Lillehei, Michael DeBakey and Denton Cooley were well known to the public. In the days of the first cardiac transplants and rapid promulgation of cardiopulmonary bypass, cardiac surgery as a discipline was well funded, was revered by the public, and became increasingly clinically effective. The degree of latitude in development (experimentation) was extraordinary by any measure and naturally cardiac surgeons found themselves in a highly specialized and protected environment. For many years this unique position appeared unassailable. Surgical techniques and skills were perfected, data collected and in many cases results have been exemplary. Technology, however, has also taken giant steps and continues to do so, rightly challenging accepted beliefs and procedures. The advent of statins and percutaneous coronary stenting was a game changer for cardiac surgery. They forced the profession to look critically at the long term. As a result the focus shifted away from the care of the patient with single or double vessel disease to the care of the patient with multi-vessel and often chronic disease. Some cardiac surgeons felt their turf had been invaded and that the future of cardiac surgery was at risk. Others took up the challenge examining more and more closely both interventional and surgical results, unafraid to publish and willing to fight for the patient. It could be said that cardiac surgery almost became a victim of its own pride and profound success. At the same time, the public interest also shifted. The surgeon is no longer the focus, appropriately it is the patient. Procedural mortality remains important, but the concepts of quality of life and fiscal responsibility loom ever larger. Perhaps one of the greatest lessons that we will need to learn, if we have not already done so, is that we must shift our attention to improving patient outcomes by accepting our limits, collaborating with other disciplines, integrating new technology into our practice and developing effective service line models to remain competitive in the ‘market place’. To improve outcomes, one must design valid questions and matrices, then measure them accurately and share that information in an effective and non-punitive manner. The SYNTAX and PARTNER trials have served as models for outcome analysis and collaborative efforts between cardiac surgeons and cardiologists. The results of these extraordinary collaborative efforts need not be feared. Ironically, what cardiac surgeons were once fearful of, new technology, will not only help us to achieve better results for sicker patients, but may also help revive an honoured profession by inspiring a new generation. Whether this new generation will be referred to as Surgeons, Interventionalists or perhaps “Operative Physicians” remains to be seen. The present issue of the Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery aims to capture a snapshot of a rapidly growing technology, Transcathether Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI), with a particular emphasis on the transapical approach, as it truly represents a paradigm for innovation and collaboration in modern cardiac surgery. We are indebted to the pioneers in this field, in particular to Professor Friedrich Mohr from Leipzig, Michael Mack from Dallas, Alain Cribier from Rouen and John Webb from Vancouver. As we all know that being a vocal advocate of a new technology inherently puts one in a position of being an advocate for change, and controversy is an inevitable companion of change. We strongly encourage you all to at least keep an open mind about this innovative procedure, as it may well turn out to be as widely accepted as percutaneous coronary intervention and a skill that a modern cardiac surgeon is expected to master in the coming years. Now, it is our great pleasure to introduce our special Guest Editor, Professor Michael Borger, associate director of the Department of Cardiac Surgery at the Leipzig Heart Center in Germany, where approximately 1,500 TAVI cases have been performed to date. We sincerely thank his collaborators from all over the world for this excellent issue of the Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. They are consummate professionals in every sense of the word. We will all be well served to learn from the successes and challenges that our pioneers in modern cardiac surgery face, as we develop through this interesting time.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→