Sex Differences in Phenotypes of Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Aortopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background— This large multicenter, international bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) registry aimed to define the sex differences in prevalence, valve morphology, dysfunction (aortic stenosis/regurgitation), aortopathy, and complications (endocarditis and aortic dissection). Methods and Results— Demographic, clinical, and echocardiographic data at first presentation of 1992 patients with BAV (71.5% men) were retrospectively analyzed. BAV morphology and valve function were assessed; aortopathy configuration was defined as isolated dilatation of the sinus of Valsalva or sinotubular junction, isolated dilatation of the ascending aorta distal to the sinotubular junction, or diffuse dilatation of the aortic root and ascending aorta. New cases of endocarditis and aortic dissection were recorded. There were no significant sex differences regarding BAV morphology and frequency of normal valve function. When presenting with moderate/severe aortic valve dysfunction, men had more frequent aortic regurgitation than women (33.8% versus 22.2%, P <0.001), whereas women were more likely to have aortic stenosis (34.5% versus 44.1%, P <0.001). Men had more frequently isolated dilatation of the sinus of Valsalva or sinotubular junction (14.2% versus 6.7%, P <0.001) and diffuse dilatation of the aortic root and ascending aorta (16.2% versus 7.3%, P <0.001) than women. Endocarditis (4.5% versus 2.5%, P =0.037) and aortic dissections (0.5% versus 0%, P <0.001) occurred more frequently in men. Conclusions— Although there is a male predominance among patients with BAV, men with BAV had more frequently moderate/severe aortic regurgitation at first presentation compared with women, whereas women presented more often with moderate/severe aortic stenosis compared with men. Furthermore, men had more frequent aortopathy than women.
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 | 0.001 | 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".