124 Survival with valvular heart disease (OxValve-Survive)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Valvular heart disease (VHD) occurs commonly in older patients (>65 years) but the majority is mild disease, which is of uncertain importance. Understanding the impact of VHD on mortality in this older group of patients would help determine its relevance and aid the appropriate use of healthcare resources. We determined survival in the OxValve cohort study to investigate whether people with VHD are at increased risk of death. Methods OxValve is a cohort study in Oxfordshire, involving systematic screening of people aged 65 and over for VHD. Over 4,009 participants were recruited between August 2009 and May 2016 and screened using echocardiography to establish the presence and severity of VHD. The cohort was linked to Office for National Statistics mortality data to obtain date and cause of death. Cox regression was used to investigate the association of any VHD, VHD of significant severity, and VHD subtypes with all-cause and cause-specific mortality, adjusting for potential confounders including age, sex, socioeconomic status, smoking, and comorbidities. Results Linked mortality data was available for 3,511 OxValve participants up to September 2018 (median 5.85 years follow-up). VHD was present in 2,645 (75.3%) participants and of these 288 (8.2%) had significant (moderate or severe) VHD. In total, 311 (8.9%) participants had died. Cancer was the commonest cause of death (n=135), followed by cardiovascular disease (n=75) and respiratory disease (n=35). After adjustment for age and other covariates, mild VHD was not associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.16, 95%CI: 0.89 to 1.50). However, VHD of significant severity (moderate or severe disease) was associated with a nearly two-fold higher risk of death overall (HR 1.92, 95%CI: 1:38 to 2.67) including increased CVD mortality (HR 2.25, 95% CI: 1.21 to 4.18) – see figure. Conclusion Mild VHD is very common, but is not associated with increased mortality. Significant (moderate-severe) VHD was however associated with a two-fold reduction in survival. Further research is required to understand the natural history of VHD, how to identify those with progressive disease and when to intervene. Conflict of Interest None
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".