Aortic dilatation in patients with Turner’s syndrome without structural cardiac anomaly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dilatation of the ascending aorta is described in Turner's syndrome with variable prevalence (6.8-32%). Reported series typically include patients with associated cardiac anomalies. OBJECTIVE: To characterise the prevalence, age of onset, and the progress of dilatation of the ascending aorta in Turner's syndrome patients free of structural cardiac anomalies. Potential risk factors such as karyotype and growth hormone therapy were analysed for correlation with aortic dilatation. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study with data collected from medical records and echocardiography studies. Patients with Tuner's syndrome followed-up between 1992 and 2010 with at least two echocardiography studies were eligible. Patients with previous cardiac surgery or under anti-hypertensive medication were excluded. Ascending aorta diameter measurements were adjusted for body surface area, and dilatation was defined as Z-score>2. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 44 patients, aged 11.9±7.4 years at the first echocardiogram and 17.9±7.3 years at the last follow-up, with a follow-up duration of 6.0±3.7 years. A total of 13 (29.5%) patients exhibited aortic dilatation during follow-up, suggesting an actuarial estimate of the freedom from aortic dilatation dropping from 86 to 70% and then to 37% at 10, 20, and 30 years of age, respectively. There was no statistically significant impact of karyotype or growth hormone therapy on aortic Z-score progression. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of dilatation of the ascending aorta in Turner's syndrome patients free of structural aortic anomalies is comparable with published data with associated lesions. Growth hormone therapy and karyotype had no significant impact; however, longitudinal follow-up is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".