MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Estimation of the End of Ejection in Aortic Stenosis

2004· article· en· W2078721312 on OpenAlexaff
Javier Bermejo, José Luis Rojo‐Álvarez, J. C. Antoranz, Monica Abel, Ian G. Burwash, Raquel Yotti, Mar Moreno, Miguel Ángel García Fernández, Kenneth G. Lehmann, Catherine M Otto

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersComunidad de Madrid
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineStenosisPressure gradientAortic pressureHemodynamicsDoppler echocardiographyCardiac outputAortic valveBlood pressureDiastoleMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: All indices of aortic stenosis (AS) rely on measurements of mean transvalvular pressure gradient (DeltaP) and flow rate. Because the gradient is reversed during late ejection, the late systolic left ventricular (LV)-aortic pressure crossover may be an erroneous landmark of end-ejection. The aortic incisura should be a better reference to calculate indices of AS invasively. METHODS AND RESULTS: The accuracy of the pressure crossover and the incisura to define end-ejection was assessed in a chronic AS experimental model (9 dogs) with the use of an implantable flowmeter and Doppler echocardiography as reference. In 288 hemodynamic recordings analyzed (aortic valve area [AVA]: 0.74+/-0.46 cm2), ejection ended 37+/-29 ms after the pressure crossover but almost simultaneously with the incisura (2+/-17 ms). Pressure crossover error accounted for significant errors in the measurement of DeltaP (95% limits of agreement, +0 to +7 mm Hg) and AVA (-0.1 to +0.2 cm2). These errors were reduced to less than half with the use of the incisura to define end-ejection. Additionally, the agreement with Doppler-derived AS indices was best with use of the incisura. Pressure crossover error was maximal in situations of higher output, moderate orifice narrowing, higher arterial compliance, and lower vascular resistance. In 32 consecutive patients undergoing cardiac catheterization for AS, the pressure crossover induced a clinically important overestimation of the DeltaP from +22 to +50%. Errors in AVA estimation were considerably smaller (-2% to +6%) because of simultaneous and offsetting errors in the measurements of DeltaP and flow. CONCLUSIONS: The aortic incisura and not the second pressure crossover should be used to obtain invasive indices of 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 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)0.003
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations26
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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