Global Longitudinal Strain and Brain Natriuretic Peptide as Prognostic Biomarkers for Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Regurgitation with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) are emerging biomarkers used to risk-stratify patients with asymptomatic severe aortic regurgitation (AR) and preserved ejection fraction (EF). Although numerous clinical trials have investigated the efficacy of these biomarkers in patients with aortic stenosis, only a limited number have examined these biomarkers in patients with AR. Therefore, the proposed systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to assess the prognostic value of BNP and/or GLS in patients with severe asymptomatic AR and preserved EF. Objective: This is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis that will aggregate and synthesize high-quality clinical data on the usefulness of BNP and GLS as prognostic indicators for asymptomatic severe AR with preserved EF. By providing a comprehensive review, our study will have a significant impact in determining surgical candidacy in this patient population. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension), which is an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews, a comprehensive search of databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, will be performed to retrieve peer-reviewed, English-language, observational, and experimental studies published from inception to November 2024. Studies that investigated patients aged ≥18 years with severe AR and preserved EF will be included. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies. Results: Search strategy development for this systematic review began in November 2024. A Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies review of the search strategy with 2 academic librarians occurred in December 2024, and the final search strategy was finalized by the team of investigators in January 2025. Database queries and screening of studies began in January 2025 with title screening, followed by abstract screening in January and February 2025. Full-text screening took place from February to April 2025. Data extraction occurred between April and May 2025. Synthesis and risk of bias assessment occurred between April and May 2026, followed by data analysis between June and July 2026. Manuscript drafting will begin between June 2026 and July 2026, with manuscript writing and data dissemination continuing from May 2026 to August 2026. Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal by August 2026. Conclusions: This systematic review will synthesize the existing evidence to determine the prognostic value of BNP and GLS in patients with asymptomatic severe AR and preserved EF, which could inform future clinical guidelines for the management of this population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,040 | 0,101 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,017 | 0,022 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,063 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».