MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765702353 · doi:10.1161/jaha.117.006309

Forward Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Simple Risk Marker in Patients With Primary Mitral Regurgitation

2017· article· en· W2765702353 on OpenAlexaff
Marlène Dupuis, Haïfa Mahjoub, Marie‐Annick Clavel, Nancy Côté, Oumhani Toubal, Lionel Tastet, Jean G. Dumesnil, Kim O’Connor, Abdellaziz Dahou, Christophe Thébault, Catherine Bélanger, Jonathan Beaudoin, Marie Arsenault, Mathieu Bernier, Philippe Pîbarot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionCardiologyInternal medicineHazard ratioMitral regurgitationAsymptomaticAtrial fibrillationMitral valveStroke volumeConfidence intervalCoronary artery diseaseHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The timing of mitral valve surgery in asymptomatic patients with primary mitral regurgitation ( MR ) is controversial. We hypothesized that the forward left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction ( LVEF ; ie, LV outflow tract stroke volume divided by LV end‐diastolic volume) is superior to the total LVEF to predict outcomes in MR . The objective of this study was to examine the association between echocardiographic parameters of MR severity and LV function and outcomes in patients with MR . Methods and Results The clinical and Doppler‐echocardiographic data of 278 patients with ≥mild MR and no class I indication of mitral valve surgery at baseline were retrospectively analyzed. The primary study end point was the composite of mitral valve surgery or death. During a mean follow‐up of 5.4±3.2 years, there were 147 (53%) events: 96 (35%) MV surgeries and 66 (24%) deaths. Total LVEF and global longitudinal strain were not associated with the occurrence of events, whereas forward LVEF ( P <0.0001) and LV end‐systolic diameter ( P =0.0003) were. After adjustment for age, sex, MR severity, Charlson probability, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation, forward LVEF remained independently associated with the occurrence of events (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.09, [95% confidence interval]: 1.02–1.17 per 5% decrease; P =0.01), whereas LV end‐systolic diameter was not ( P =0.48). Conclusions The results of this study suggest that the forward LVEF may be superior to the total LVEF and LV end‐systolic diameter to predict outcomes in patients with primary MR . This simple and easily measurable parameter may be useful to improve risk stratification and select the best timing for intervention in patients with primary MR .

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207