Characteristics and outcomes in a prospective cohort of patients with histologically diagnosed aortitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our aim was to evaluate characteristics and prospective adverse aortic outcomes in a cohort of patients with non-infectious histological aortitis. Patients with histological aortitis, diagnosed at the Ottawa Hospital after surgical repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms or dissections, consented to enrolment in a prospective observational cohort. Patients were assessed for an underlying inflammatory condition and followed prospectively with periodic clinical, laboratory and radiographic assessments. Aortic outcomes during follow-up included significant events, defined as new thoracic or abdominal aortic aneurysms, dissections, ruptures or other complications requiring aortic intervention, in addition to aortic branch ectasias, aneurysms and stenosis. Sixteen patients with histological aortitis from surgical procedures performed between 2010 and 2017 were included; nine had idiopathic and seven had secondary aortitis. Idiopathic patients were more likely to have smoked (100 vs 43%, P = 0.02) and had more associated arch or descending aortic aneurysms on pre-operative baseline imaging compared with secondary aortitis (6 vs 0, P = 0.01). At the median 3.6 years of follow-up, eight patients (50%) had 10 significant aortic events. The incidence of aortic dissection was higher in the first year post-surgery, compared with subsequent years, whereas incident aneurysms occurred throughout follow-up. Elevated inflammatory markers during follow-up trended towards association with accumulation of severe aortic damage. This is the first reported prospective study in patients with histological aortitis. Within the limitations of a small cohort, we report a high incidence of aortic complications. Studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to corroborate these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".