MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916157809 · doi:10.1002/ccd.28146

Hemodynamic characterization of aortic stenosis states

2019· article· en· W2916157809 on OpenAlexaff
Amr E. Abbas, Philippe Pîbarot

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyStenosisHemodynamicsInternal medicineAortic valveCardiac catheterizationPressure gradientAortic valve replacementAortic valve stenosisPopulationRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aortic stenosis (AS) has become an increasingly prevalent clinical condition, as a result of the “greying of the population”, the widespread application of sophisticated diagnostic tools including non‐invasive imaging and invasive techniques, and the advent of minimally invasive surgical and percutaneous valve therapies. The diagnosis of severe AS traditionally has relied on the assessment of the mean transvalvular gradient (Δ P mean ) and aortic valve area (AVA) by either echocardiography or catheterization. However, other hemodynamic variables as flow, pressure recovery, and jet eccentricity also play a major role in determining the final hemodynamic state of AS. Moreover, mismatch between Δ P mean and AVA as in low flow low gradient AS and discordance between catheterization and echocardiographic studies in grading severity of AS have increased the complexity of AS diagnosis. The present case‐based treatise emphasizes a multi‐modality approach to delineation of the hemodynamic pathophysiology of different AS states. Key points Reduction in the aortic valve area, flow across the aortic valve, and direction of the aortic stenosis jet determine the pressure gradient generated across the aortic valve in patients with aortic stenosis. Discordance between echo and catheterization maximum gradients is related to the inherent temporal differences between the times of their acquisition. Discordance between echo and catheterization mean gradients is related to pressure recovery and assumptions in the application of Bernoulli equation to estimate the aortic valve gradient. Pressure recovery relates to the ratio of the aortic valve area and ascending aortic diameter as well as the jet direction. Mismatch between area and gradient criteria for aortic stenosis severity may occur with or without concordance between echocardiographic and catheterization data. Errors of measurement should be excluded prior to assuming any mismatch or discordance between the data. Area gradient mismatch occurs when the aortic valve area is in the severe range, while the gradient is in the non‐severe range as in low flow low gradient aortic stenosis. Reverse area gradient mismatch occurs when the gradient is in the severe range, while the aortic valve area is in the non‐severe range as in congenital aortic stenosis with an eccentric jet.

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 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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207