What is wrong with the right ventricle after surgical closure of a ventricular septal defect?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The outcomes of patients after surgical closure of a ventricular septal defect (VSD) performed during infancy or childhood is considered to be excellent with low long-term morbidity and mortality.1–3 In most congenital heart centres, patients after surgical VSD closure are discharged from follow-up if there are no known significant residual lesions such as a residual VSD, aortic regurgitation, or subaortic stenosis. This probably explains why there are very few long-term follow-up studies on one of the most common indications for congenital heart surgery. The study by Heiberg et al.4 looked at a small group of adult patients who underwent surgical closure of a VSD during infancy or childhood. The authors studied left and right ventricular structure and function using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) in 27 young adult patients (mean age 20.5 years) who underwent surgical VSD closure around 1.9 years of age. All patients were clinically asymptomatic. The authors observed that the RVs in the patients were slightly larger and more hypertrophied (higher RV mass index) when compared with normal controls. They also observed a slightly lower fractional area change suggesting a lower RV ejection fraction. Using feature tracking cMRI analysis, they found a small increase in radial RV strain with normal longitudinal RV strain. The left ventricular dimensions and function were within normal range. These data suggest incomplete right ventricular remodelling in patients after VSD closure with residual RV hypertrophy and dilation associated with increased radial deformation. The clinical significance and long-term implications of these findings are currently unknown, but the residual changes are interesting and require further investigation. The paper can be criticized for the methodology used to analyse RV size and function. The authors did not quantify RV volumes and ejection fraction, arguing that the more prominent RV trabeculations in the VSD group precluded a reliable RV endocardial tracing. This is a missed opportunity as MRI is generally considered to be the best technique for assessing RV volumes and other groups have reported reliable results in the presence of RV hypertrophy and dilatation.5,6 Interestingly the authors decided to measure RV mass index, which theoretically would have the same technical problems as RV volumetric calculations. They also missed the opportunity to obtain detailed echocardiographic data, which could have provided further important information on RV structure and function. Despite these methodological limitations, the findings are interesting and somewhat surprising.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".