Right ventricular outflow tract obstruction should be considered in assessing influence of pulmonary regurgitation on right ventricular volumes: reply
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We would like to thank Spiewak et al. for their interest in our study.1 Upon review of our data, we confirm that our population consists primarily of patients with pulmonary insufficiency in the absence of significant right ventricular outflow tract obstruction (RVOTO). Furthermore, should there have been an element of RVOTO in our patients, the data by Coats et al. illustrate that this would not have been an important confounder.2 Although their study demonstrates that relief of RVOTO by percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation, in the absence of important pulmonary regurgitation, would yield a statistically significant decrease in right ventricular end-diastolic volume from 99.9 to 89.7 mL/m2, it should be noted that both of these values fall within the normal range for right ventricular size and the impact of RVOTO on RV chamber dilation is therefore not of major clinical relevance.3
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 | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".