A propensity score-adjusted analysis of clinical outcomes after pulmonary valve replacement in tetralogy of Fallot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the association of pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) with death and sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot (rTOF). Methods Subjects with rTOF and cardiac magnetic resonance from an international registry were included. A PVR propensity score was created to adjust for baseline differences. PVR consensus criteria were predefined as pulmonary regurgitation >25% and ≥2 of the following criteria: right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic volume >160 mL/m 2 , RV end-systolic volume >80 mL/m 2 , RV ejection fraction (EF) <47%, left ventricular EF <55% and QRS duration >160 ms. The primary outcome included (aborted) death and sustained VT. The secondary outcome included heart failure, non-sustained VT and sustained supraventricular tachycardia. Results In 977 rTOF subjects (age 26±15 years, 45% PVR, follow-up 5.3±3.1 years), the primary and secondary outcomes occurred in 41 and 88 subjects, respectively. The HR for subjects with versus without PVR (time-varying covariate) was 0.65 (95% CI 0.31 to 1.36; P=0.25) for the primary outcome and 1.43 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.46; P=0.19) for the secondary outcome after adjusting for propensity and other factors. In subjects (n=426) not meeting consensus criteria, the HR for subjects with (n=132) versus without (n=294) PVR was 2.53 (95% CI 0.79 to 8.06; P=0.12) for the primary outcome and 2.31 (95% CI 1.07 to 4.97; P=0.03) for the secondary outcome. Conclusion In this large multicentre rTOF cohort, PVR was not associated with a reduced rate of death and sustained VT at an average follow-up of 5.3 years. Additionally, there were more events after PVR compared with no PVR in subjects not meeting consensus criteria.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".