Aortic root motion remodeling after aortic valve replacement - implications for late aortic dissection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aortic root motion was previously identified as an additional risk factor for aortic dissection. This study analyzed if the magnitude of aortic root motion changed in patients after aortic valve replacement (AVR) and acute proximal aortic dissection. An institutional database (1984-2005) was used to measure the downward motion of the aortic root (perpendicular to the plane of the sinotubular junction) in contrast injections in 48 patients with aortic insufficiency (AI), aortic stenosis (AS) and proximal aortic dissection pre- and postoperatively, when available. Postoperative aortic root motion was significantly reduced after AVR for AI, while it was significantly increased after AVR for AS. By contrast, aortic root motion was unchanged when functional AI due to paravalvular leak was present post-AVR for AI. In patients with acute aortic dissection, both aortic root motion and aortic diameter were unchanged from pre-dissection. However, in patients who dissected again, aortic root motion was significantly smaller than pre-dissection, and the aortic diameter was significantly less than at first dissection. Removal of aortic stenosis was associated with increased aortic root motion, theoretically heightening the threat of dissection posed to the aortic wall by mechanical stress, although this was not confirmed by our study of dissection patients. Yet, mechanical principles command to include higher magnitude of aortic root motion during follow-up of patients after AVR as an additional risk factor for dissection.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it