MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2103634151

Value and limitations of peak-to-peak gradient for evaluation of aortic stenosis.

2006· article· en· W2103634151 on OpenAlexaff
Lyes Kadem, Damien Garcia, Louis‐Gilles Durand, Régis Rieu, Jean G. Dumesnil, Philippe Pîbarot

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineBody orificeHemodynamicsStenosisDoppler effectBlood pressureDoppler echocardiographyDiastole
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: In patients with aortic stenosis (AS), it has been reported that the transvalvular pressure gradients (APs) may be reduced or even abolished in the presence of concomitant arterial hypertension, but the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon remain unclear. The study aim was to: (i) examine the relationship between systemic arterial hemodynamics and the peak-to-peak (deltaP(PtoP)), peak deltaP and mean deltaP; and (ii) propose and validate a new formula for the non-invasive estimation of the deltaP(PtoP) and of the peak left ventricular systolic pressure (LVSP) using Doppler echocardiography. METHODS: Two fixed stenoses (geometric orifice area 1.0 and 1.35 cm2) and one bioprosthesis (effective orifice area (EOA) 1.2 cm2) were tested in a mock flow circulation model. Systemic vascular resistance (R) was increased from 1,500 to 3,300 dyne.s/cm5, and systemic arterial compliance (C) was decreased from 2.9 to 0.9 ml/mmHg, while transvalvular flow was held constant. RESULTS: Neither C nor R had any significant impact on EOA, peak deltaP and mean deltaP. deltaP(PtoP) was decreased markedly, however, when C was reduced (bioprosthesis: -15 mmHg (-69%); orifice 1.35 cm2: -24 mmHg (-30%); cm2: (-13%)). Subsequently, an equation was proposed to predict deltaP(PtoP) from EOA, mean deltaP, and C measured by Doppler echocardiography. LVSP calculated by adding the predicted deltaP(Ptop) to systolic arterial pressure (SAP) was compared with LVSP measured directly in a dataset of 24 pigs with experimentally induced AS. There was a strong agreement between the estimated and measured LVSP (r = 0.97; mean absolute error 5 +/- 5 mmHg). CONCLUSION: deltaP(Ptop) should not be used to evaluate AS severity because, as opposed to peak and mean deltaPs, it is highly influenced by C. The new non-invasive method proposed in this study to estimate the LVSP may be useful for obtaining a more accurate estimate of global LV afterload 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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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