ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Beyond Conventional Meta-Analysis: A Meta-Learning Model to Predict Cohort-Level Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR).
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Clinical Utility and Limitations of Traditional Risk Scores (EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II, and STS-PROM) in Patients Undergoing TAVI: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
CONTEXT AND
objectivePost-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) mortality exhibits extreme heterogeneity that conventional meta-analyses fail to explain, limiting the clinical utility of evidence synthesis and hindering accurate prognostic assessment. This study evaluated whether meta-learning, using aggregate data from the literature, can predict cohort-level mortality and identify its determinants, overcoming the limitations of traditional methods to provide a clearer understanding of the factors driving TAVR outcomes.
methodsA systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted across five databases. Methodological quality was assessed with standardized tools (Risk of Bias 2, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Exposure). After performing conventional meta-analyses and meta-regressions, multiple machine learning models were trained using study-level characteristics as predictors. Advanced optimization with regularization and ensemble techniques was applied to develop a final, optimized model.
resultsFifty-eight studies, encompassing over 533,000 patients, were included. Traditional meta-analysis confirmed extreme heterogeneity (I
conclusionsMeta-learning significantly surpasses traditional methods in extracting systematic signals from heterogeneous evidence. This study demonstrates that, in addition to patient risk factors, a significant temporal gradient models technological evolution and learning curves. The methodology transforms seemingly unexplained heterogeneity into clinically interpretable patterns, demonstrating the potential of meta-learning as a complementary tool for evidence synthesis in interventional cardiology and opening avenues for applications in other complex cardiovascular fields. Important Limitation: This model predicts cohort-level outcomes and should not be used for individual risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.