MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 11979: Relationship between the QT Interval and Outcome in Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis With Low LVEF

2016· article· en· W2761391592 on OpenAlexaff
Abdellaziz Dahou, Oumhani Toubal, Marie‐Annick Clavel, Jonathan Beaudoin, Julien Magné, Patrick Mathieu, François Philippon, Jean G. Dumesnil, Rishi Puri, Henrique Barbosa Ribeiro, Éric Larose, Josep Rodés‐Cabau, Philippe Pîbarot

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-PinelUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyStenosisInternal medicineEjection fractionQT intervalHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The QT interval has been shown to be associated with cardiovascular events. There is no data available on the association between the QT interval and left ventricular (LV) function and on its impact on prognosis in patients with low LV ejection fraction (LVEF), low-flow, low-gradient (LF-LG) aortic stenosis (AS). The objectives of this study were to examine the relationship between the corrected QT interval (QTc) and LV function and outcome in patients with LF-LG AS and low LVEF. Methods: Ninety-three patients (73±10 years; 74% men) with LF-LG AS (i.e. mean gradient [MG] <40 mmHg and indexed aortic valve area [AVAi] ≤0.6 cm2/m2) and reduced LVEF (≤40%) were prospectively included in this analysis and 63 (68%) of them underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) within 3 months following inclusion. QTc was calculated with the Bazett formula. Prolonged QTc was defined as QTc> 450 ms in men and >470 ms in women. The severity of AS was assessed by the projected AVA (AVAproj) at normal flow rate. LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) was measured by 2D speckle tracking and expressed in absolute value

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→