Impact of Surgical Ventricular Reconstruction on Sphericity Index in Patients with Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy: Follow-Up from the STICH Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We sought to evaluate associations between baseline sphericity index (SI) and clinical outcome, and changes in SI after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with or without surgical ventricular reconstruction (SVR) in ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients enrolled in the SVR study (Hypothesis 2) of the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 1000 patients in the STICH SVR study, we evaluated 546 patients (255 randomized to CABG alone and 291 to CABG + SVR) whose baseline SI values were available. SI was not significantly different between treatment groups at baseline. After 4 months, SI had increased in the CABG + SVR group, but was unchanged in the CABG alone group (0.69 ± 0.10 to 0.77 ± 0.12 vs. 0.67 ± 0.07 to 0.66 ± 0.09, respectively; P < 0.001). SI did not significantly change from 4 months to 2 years in either group. Although LV end-systolic volume and EF improved significantly more in the CABG + SVR group compared with CABG alone, the severity of mitral regurgitation significantly improved only in the CABG alone group, and the estimated LV filling pressure (E/A ratio) increased only in the CABG + SVR group. Higher baseline SI was associated with worse survival after surgery (hazard ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.02 - 1.43; P = 0.026). Survival was not significantly different by treatment strategy. CONCLUSION: Although SVR was designed to improve LV geometry, SI worsened after SVR despite improved LVEF and smaller LV volume. Survival was significantly better in patients with lower SI regardless of treatment strategy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".