MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Usefulness of the Indexed Effective Orifice Area in the Assessment of Subaortic Stenosis in the Dog

2001· article· en· W2008330875 on OpenAlexaff
Marie C. Bélanger, Rocky Di Fruscia, Jean G. Dumesnil, Philippe Pîbarot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineBody surface areaStenosisVentricular outflow tractHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate the usefulness of the Doppler-derived effective orifice area (EOA) in assessing the hemodynamic severity of subaortic stenosis (SAS) in dogs, 2-dimensional and Doppler echocardiographic examinations were performed in 16 dogs with SAS, 22 normal adult dogs, and 22 normal puppies. The EOA was calculated by the continuity equation using the stroke volume determined in the right ventricular outflow tract. The EOA was significantly lower (P < .001 ) in the SAS dogs (0.76+/-0.45 cm2) and in the normal puppies (1.58+/-1.00 cm2) than in the normal adult dogs (2.34+/-0.78 cm2). The EOA indexed for body surface area (IEOA) was significantly lower (0.89+/-0.48 cm2/m2) in SAS dogs than in the normal puppies (2.42+/-0.85 cm2/m2) or adults (2.22+/-0.76 cm2/m2). The normal dogs (adults and puppies) had an IEOA of > or =1.25 cm2/m2. Among the demographic and echocardiographic parameters measured in this study, only the indexed EOA was significantly associated (P = .03) with the occurrence of adverse events (eg, syncope, episodic weakness, ventricular arrhythmias). This study demonstrates the usefulness and feasibility of the indexed EOA as measured by Doppler echocardiography for noninvasive assessment of SAS severity in dogs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Internal MedicineSame topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207