MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W170459578

Aortic valve area discrepancy by Gorlin equation and Doppler echocardiography continuity equation: relationship to flow in patients with valvular aortic stenosis.

2000· article· en· W170459578 on OpenAlexaff
Ian G. Burwash, Amanda Dickinson, Robert J. Teskey, James W. Tam, K.L. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsVictoria General HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyDoppler echocardiographyStenosisInternal medicineDoppler effectHemodynamicsAortic valveCardiac outputBlood pressureDiastolePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In vitro studies have shown a discrepancy between aortic valve area (AVA) measurements derived invasively by Gorlin equation (Gorlin AVA) and noninvasively by Doppler echocardiography (Doppler-echo) continuity equation (Doppler AVA) during low flow states. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a flow-related discrepancy between Gorlin AVA and Doppler AVA occurs in the clinical setting in patients with isolated valvular aortic stenosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-five consecutive patients with isolated valvular aortic stenosis, who had AVA determined both invasively by Gorlin equation and noninvasively by Doppler-echo continuity equation, were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Gorlin AVA and Doppler AVA correlated (r=0.68) over the narrow AVA range (Gorlin AVA 0.30 to 1.22 cm2); however, Doppler AVA was systematically larger than Gorlin AVA (0.80+/-0.21 versus 0.70+/-0.23 cm2, AVA difference = 0.10+/-0.17 cm2, P<0.0001). The AVA difference was inversely related to invasive cardiac index (r=-0.51) and was significantly greater at low flow states (cardiac index less than 2.5 L/min/m2) than at normal flow states (cardiac index 2.5 L/min/m2 or more) (0.16+/-0.15 versus -0.03+/-0.15 cm2, P<0.0001). Independent predictors of the AVA difference were the difference between Doppler-echo and invasive cardiac output (P<0.0001); the difference between Doppler-echo and invasive mean transvalvular pressure gradient (P=0.0002); and the average cardiac output (Doppler-echo plus invasive cardiac output/2, P=0.001) at the time of the hemodynamic assessments. The AVA difference was not related to average pressure gradient, average AVA or patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: A flow-related discrepancy between Gorlin AVA and Doppler AVA occurs in the clinical setting of patients with isolated valvular aortic stenosis. This discrepancy should be considered when assessing aortic stenosis severity during low flow states, where Gorlin AVA may be significantly smaller than Doppler AVA.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations44
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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