MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-invasive determination of transcatheter pressure gradient in stenotic aortic valves: An analytical model

2015· article· en· W2025574192 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Keshavarz‐Motamed, Pouyan K. Motamed, Nima Maftoon

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiac catheterizationStenosisCardiologyPressure gradientAortic pressureAortic valveAortic rootRoot mean squarevalvular heart diseaseInternal medicineHemodynamicsVentricular pressureAortic valve stenosisBiomedical engineeringMedicineMathematicsAortaMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aortic stenosis (AS), in which the opening of the aortic valve is narrowed, is the most common valvular heart disease. Cardiac catheterization is considered the reference standard for definitive evaluation of AS severity, based on instantaneous systolic value of transvalvular pressure gradient (TPG). However, using invasive cardiac catheterization might carry high risks knowing that undergoing multiple cardiac catheterizations for follow-up in patients with AS is common. The objective of this study was to suggest an analytical description of the AS that estimates TPG without a need for high risk invasive data collection. For this purpose, Navier-Stokes equation coupled with the elastic-deformation equation was solved analytically. The estimated TPG resulted from the suggested analytical description was validated against published in vivo and in vitro measurement data. Very good concordances were found between TPG obtained from the analytical formulation and in vivo (maximum root mean square error: 3.8 mmHg) and in vitro (maximum root mean square error: 9.4 mmHg). The analytical description can be integrated to non-invasive imaging modalities to estimate AS severity as an alternative to cardiac catheterization to help preventing its risks in patients with AS.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207