Prognostic value of right ventricular dilatation in patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prognosis of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) assessed right ventricular dilatation (RVD) is unclear in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) and a simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) of 0. We investigated in these patients whether MDCT-assessed RVD, defined by a right to left ventricular ratio (RV/LV) ≥0.9 or ≥1.0, is associated with worse outcomes. We combined data from three prospective cohorts of patients with PE. The main study outcome was the composite of 30-day all-cause mortality, haemodynamic collapse or recurrent PE in patients with sPESI of 0. Among 779 patients with a sPESI 0, 420 (54%) and 299 (38%) had a RV/LV ≥0.9 and ≥1.0 respectively. No difference in primary outcome was observed, 0.95% (95% CI 0.31–2.59) versus 0.56% (95% CI 0.10–2.22; p=0.692) and 1.34% (95% CI 0.43–3.62) versus 0.42% (95% CI 0.07–1.67; p=0.211) with RV/LV ≥0.9 and ≥1.0 respectively. Increasing the RV/LV threshold to ≥1.1, the outcome occurred more often in patients with RVD (2.12%, 95% CI 0.68–5.68 versus 0.34%, 95% CI 0.06–1.36; p=0.033). MDCT RV/LV ratio of ≥0.9 and ≥1.0 in sPESI 0 patients is frequent but not associated with a worse prognosis but higher cut-off values might be associated with worse outcome in these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".