Outcome of aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis: the number of valve cusps matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the prevalence of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is only 0.5–1% in children, it accounts for about half of aortic valve replacements (AVRs) for aortic valve stenosis (AS). These findings illustrate that valve remodelling occurs more frequently and more rapidly on bicuspid than on tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs). During their lifetime, most subjects with a BAV develop aortic valve dysfunction, mostly AS, whereas only 1% remains with a normal valve function.1 In both subjects with a BAV and those with a TAV, age is a powerful risk factor for AS, and the prevalence of this disease in the population is 3% and 10%, in the subjects >65 and 80 years of age, respectively.2 Individuals with a BAV, however, develop AS one or two decades earlier than those with a TAV and their lifetime risk of AVR is around 50% (Table 1). In this issue of the journal, Huntley et al.3 present an elegant study in which they compared age-matched cohorts of 198 BAV stenosis and 198 TAV stenosis patients. The authors found that, at a given age, patients with TAV stenosis have higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, greater degree of cardiac impairment and worse survival after AVR compared to those with BAV stenosis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".