Refining the assessment of pulmonary regurgitation in adults after tetralogy of Fallot repair: should we be measuring regurgitant fraction or regurgitant volume?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Pulmonary regurgitation (PR) is an important determinant of outcome after tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) repair. The physiologic impact of PR on the right ventricle remains incompletely understood. We hypothesized that a volumetric expression of PR would be a better measure of ventricular preload and a more accurate reflection of degree of insufficiency. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 64) with magnetic resonance imaging after TOF repair were identified. PR was quantified using: (i) phase contrast (PC) analysis of main pulmonary artery flow and (ii) differential right and left ventricular stroke volumes. PR was expressed as a volume (PR(volume)) and percentage of total forward flow (PR(fraction)). The median PC(PR volume) was 19 mL/m(2) (range 0-63 mL/m(2)) and PC(PR fraction) was 29% (range 0-58%). PR(fraction) was found to be highly variable in terms of absolute PR(volume). In those with significant PR, PR(volume) was better than PR(fraction) for the identification of severe RV dilation (receiver-operator curve area: 0.83 vs. 0.71, P = 0.003). PR(volume) using PC analysis was better at differentiating moderate from severe RV dilation (P = 0.005) as compared with PR(fraction) (P = 0.064). CONCLUSION: PR(volume) and PR(fraction) are not interchangeable. PR(volume) may be a more accurate reflection of RV preload and may better represent physiologically significant PR as compared with PR(fraction).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".