Coarctation of the Aorta and Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aortic coarctation (CoA) is reported to predispose to coronary artery disease (CAD). However, our clinical observations do not support this premise. Our objectives were to describe the prevalence of CAD among adults with CoA and to determine whether CoA is an independent predictor of CAD or premature CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population was derived from the Quebec Congenital Heart Disease Database. We compared patients with CoA and those with a ventricular septal defect, who are not known to be at increased risk of CAD. The prevalence of CAD in patients with CoA compared with those with ventricular septal defect was determined. We then used a nested case-control design to determine whether CoA independently predicted for the development of CAD. Of 756 patients with CoA who were alive in 2005, 37 had a history of CAD compared with 224 of 6481 patients with ventricular septal defect (4.9% versus 3.5%; P=0.04). Male sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62-2.80), hypertension (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.44-2.64), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.58), age (OR per 10-year increase, 2.28; 95% CI, 2.09-2.48), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 11.58; 95% CI, 5.75-23.3) all independently predicted for the development of CAD. CoA did not independently predict for the development of CAD (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.68-1.57) or premature CAD (OR for CoA versus ventricular septal defect, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.79-2.64) after adjustment for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although traditional cardiovascular risk factors independently predicted for the development of CAD, the diagnosis of CoA alone did not. Our findings suggest that cardiovascular outcomes of these patients may be improved with tight risk factor control.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".