Dilemma in the therapeutic management of low-gradient aortic stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Grading of aortic stenosis is essential in aortic stenosis management patients. However, despite clear thresholds provided in the guidelines, up to 30% of patients have discordant grading of aortic stenosis. The management of patients with low gradients/velocity despite tight aortic valve area is challenging. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies demonstrated that patients with or without low flow may have a severe aortic stenosis despite a low gradient. Moreover, aortic valve replacement has been shown to improve outcome in low-gradient aortic stenosis patients with or without low flow. Finally, measurement of aortic valve calcification by multidetector computed tomography is an important tool to assess aortic stenosis severity in these patients. SUMMARY: The presence of a low gradient/velocity despite a tight aortic valve area could be linked to low ejection fraction or low flow with preserved ejection fraction but also with normal flow and normal ejection fraction. In each situation, aortic stenosis could be truly severe or pseudosevere, and the severity of aortic stenosis has to be accurately evaluated for clinical decision-making. Nowadays, two types of interventions are available: surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, whereas conservative management should be considered as a palliative treatment in patients with proven severe aortic stenosis and symptoms or left ventricle dysfunction.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".