Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with aortic dilation: a novel observation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Our goal was to identify the prevalence of aortic dilation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), the most prevalent (0.2%) heritable, genetic cardiovascular disease. Aortic dilation also represents a spectrum of familial inheritance. However, data regarding the prevalence of aortic dilation in HCM patients is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is an observational retrospective study of all patients referred to our HCM centre. Aortic dilation was defined based on recent American Society of Echocardiography and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging published guidelines. Of the 201 HCM patients seen between Jan. 1, 2011 and March 31, 2014, 18 (9.0%) met the definition of aortic dilation. Mean age was 56.3 ± 9.3 years, 77.8% were male, mean ascending aorta diameter was 4.0 ± 0.4 cm in males and 3.8 ± 0.2 cm in females, mean sinuses of Valsalva diameter was 4.2 ± 0.2 cm in males and 3.8 ± 0.4 cm in females, and 13 (72.2%) had left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. HCM patients with dilated aorta were more likely males, less likely hypertensive and had larger left ventricle diameter and more aortic valve regurgitation; remaining characteristics were similar. CONCLUSION: We report a novel observation with 9.0% prevalance of dilated aorta in HCM patients. Further studies are needed to help define the genetic and pathophysiologic basis as well as the clinical implications of this association in a larger group of HCM patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".