MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Computed Tomography Aortic Valve Calcium Scoring in Patients With Aortic Stenosis

2018· article· en· W2894451615 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBritish Heart FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineAgatston scoreStenosisCardiologyRadiologyAortic valveAortic valve replacementHazard ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalMultidetector computed tomographyAortic valve stenosisComputed tomographyCoronary artery calcium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background— Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring (CT-AVC) holds promise for the assessment of patients with aortic stenosis (AS). We sought to establish the clinical utility of CT-AVC in an international multicenter cohort of patients. Methods and Results— Patients with AS who underwent ECG-gated CT-AVC within 3 months of echocardiography were entered into an international, multicenter, observational registry. Optimal CT-AVC thresholds for diagnosing severe AS were determined in patients with concordant echocardiographic assessments, before being used to arbitrate disease severity in those with discordant measurements. In patients with long-term follow-up, we assessed whether CT-AVC thresholds predicted aortic valve replacement and death. In 918 patients from 8 centers (age, 77±10 years; 60% men; peak velocity, 3.88±0.90 m/s), 708 (77%) patients had concordant echocardiographic assessments, in whom CT-AVC provided excellent discrimination for severe AS (C statistic: women 0.92, men 0.89). Our optimal sex-specific CT-AVC thresholds (women 1377 Agatston unit and men 2062 Agatston unit) were nearly identical to those previously reported (women 1274 Agatston unit and men 2065 Agatston unit). Clinical outcomes were available in 215 patients (follow-up 1029 [126–2251] days). Sex-specific CT-AVC thresholds independently predicted aortic valve replacement and death (hazard ratio, 3.90 [95% confidence interval, 2.19–6.78]; P <0.001) after adjustment for age, sex, peak velocity, and aortic valve area. Among 210 (23%) patients with discordant echocardiographic assessments, there was considerable heterogeneity in CT-AVC scores, which again were an independent predictor of clinical outcomes (hazard ratio, 3.67 [95% confidence interval, 1.39–9.73]; P =0.010). Conclusions— Sex-specific CT-AVC thresholds accurately identify severe AS and provide powerful prognostic information. These findings support their integration into routine clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT01358513, NCT02132026, NCT00338676, NCT00647088, NCT01679431.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.257 · 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