MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ejection Fraction Velocity Ratio as an Indicator of Aortic Stenosis Severity

2005· article· en· W2097117252 on OpenAlexaff
Abdullah Alghamdi, Libardo J. Meléndez, David Massel

Bibliographic record

VenueEchocardiography · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiologyEjection fractionStenosisInternal medicineMedicineAortic valve stenosisAortic valveReceiver operating characteristicHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of the continuity equation in the estimation of aortic valve area (AVA) in patients with aortic stenosis, it is subject to errors, time consuming, and can be technically demanding. As such, simpler methods of assessing aortic stenosis severity have been pursued. METHODS: The ejection fraction velocity ratio [EFVR = ejection fraction (%) / maximal aortic velocity (m/sec)] was compared to AVA determined with the continuity equation in 857 patients with aortic stenosis and varying degrees of LV systolic dysfunction. Severe aortic stenosis was defined as an AVA < 1.0 cm2. RESULTS: There was good to excellent correlation between our index and aortic valve area (P < 0.001 for each ejection fraction subgroup). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the EFVR functioned well with areas under the curve between 0.893 and 0.938. CONCLUSION: The EFVR is a simple noninvasive method for screening patients for an AVA of 1.0 cm2. It could be used as a screening test or in lieu of the continuity equation particularly when there is problematic measurement of either the LVOT diameter or velocity.

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 score0.005

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEchocardiographySame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207