Impairment of coronary flow reserve in aortic stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary flow reserve (CFR) is markedly reduced in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS), but the exact mechanisms underlying this impairment of CFR in AS remain unclear. Reduced CFR is the key mechanism leading to myocardial ischemia symptoms and adverse outcomes in AS patients. The objective of this study was to develop an explicit mathematical model formulated with a limited number of parameters that describes the effect of AS on left coronary inflow patterns and CFR. We combined the mathematical V(3) (ventricular-valvular-vascular) model with a new lumped-parameter model of coronary inflow. One thousand Monte-Carlo computational simulations with AS graded from mild up to very severe were performed within a wide range of physiological conditions. There was a good agreement between the CFR values computed with this new model and those measured in 24 patients with isolated AS (r = 0.77, P < 10(-4)). A global sensitivity analysis showed that the valve effective orifice area (EOA) was the major physiological determinant of CFR (total sensitivity index = 0.87). CFR was markedly reduced when AS became severe, i.e., when EOA was <1.0 cm(2), and was generally exhausted when the EOA was <0.5-0.6 cm(2). The reduction of CFR that is associated with AS can be explained by the concomitance of 1) reduced myocardial supply as a result of decreased coronary perfusion pressure, and 2) increased myocardial metabolic demand as a result of increased left ventricular workload.
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) | 0.001 | 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".