MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W9605182

Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses: clinical performance assessed by actual analysis.

2000· article· en· W9605182 on OpenAlexaff
W.R. Eric Jamieson, Robert T. Miyagishima, Lawrence H. Burr, Samuel V. Lichtenstein, Guy Fradet, Michael T. Janusz

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitral valve replacementAortic valve replacementMitral valveAortic valveSurgeryCardiologyValve replacementInternal medicineHeart valveStenosis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The clinical performance of porcine bioprostheses for valve replacement has been evaluated for over three decades by actuarial analysis as the standard for reporting time-related results. Actual or cumulative incidence analysis provides a complementary method to determine the manifestations of valve-related complications due primarily to structural valve deterioration. Valve-related mortality and reoperation of porcine bioprostheses for aortic and mitral valve replacement was compared by actuarial and actual methodology. METHODS: The Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses were implanted between 1975 and 1995 as 2,237 aortic valve replacements (AVR) and 1,582 mitral valve replacements (MVR). Coronary artery bypass was performed in 36.4% of AVR, and 30.6% of MVR. Fatal valve-related complications occurred in 7.6% of AVR and 11.3% of MVR. The cumulative follow up was 14,810 patient-years (mean 6.6 years) for AVR and 9,718 patient-years (mean 6.1 years) for MVR. RESULTS: Patient survival, and actuarial and actual freedom from valve-related mortality and valve-related reoperation was reported at 15 years. For AVR, survival in the 61-70 years age group was 30.9%, freedom from valve-related mortality was 79.3% and 86.9% respectively, and freedom from valve-related reoperation 79.0% and 88.1% respectively. For AVR, survival in the >70 years age group was 18.1%, freedom from valve-related mortality 72.8% and 84.9% respectively, and freedom from reoperation 86.3% and 96.1% respectively. For MVR, survival in the 61-70 years age group was 16.1% at 15 years, freedom from valve-related mortality was 59.5% and 79.5% respectively, and freedom from valve-related reoperation 32.6% and 71.0% respectively. For MVR, survival in the >70 years age group was 2.8% at 15 years, valve-related mortality was 26.1% and 82.0% respectively, and freedom from valve-related reoperation 83.4% and 93.3% respectively. CONCLUSION: The actual freedom from valve-related mortality and valve-related reoperation (primarily from structural valve deterioration), provides further evidence to consider porcine bioprostheses for AVR in patients aged >60 years, and for MVR in patients aged >70 years. The freedom from valve-related mortality supports the use of porcine bioprostheses for MVR in patients aged 61-70 years. Patient survival is influenced to the greatest extent by factors other than valve-related mortality.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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