MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999691171 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/jez319.806

P1371 The effect of ideal BSA in patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis

2020· article· en· W2999691171 on OpenAlexaff
M. Matangi, M Cases, T. Zhu, U. Jurt, D. Brouillard

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody surface areaMedicineCardiologyStenosisInternal medicineEjection fractionRegurgitation (circulation)Aortic valveMitral regurgitationAtrial fibrillationPericardial effusionHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION The current obesity epidemic has an impact on calculated BSA, significantly increasing the calculated BSA from what the ideal BSA would be if based on a patient’s ideal body weight. PURPOSE To determine the effect of ideal BSA on AV area index in patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis and normal left ventricular function. METHODS Our ECHO database was searched for all patients with an LVEF >50%, a mean aortic gradient of <40 mmHg, an AV area <1.00cm2, AVA index <0.60cm2/m2 and SV index <35ml/m2. Patients with atrial fibrillation, mechanical and bioprosthetic valves, any valve repair, HOCM, Amyloidosis, more than mild aortic regurgitation, moderate mitral regurgitation, any wall motion abnormality despite normal LVEF, Pacemaker or ICD or a moderate pericardial effusion were excluded. Ideal weight was calculated using the Devine formula = Constant + 2.3 x [height in inches-60], where constant= 50Kg in males and 45.5Kg in females). Body surface area in m2 was calculated using the formula = [√ (height in cm x weight in kg)/3600]. The paired t-test was used to determine differences between means and the Fisher’s exact test was used to determine differences between proportions. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS There were 73 females (mean age 76.2 ± 11.3 years, mean AV gradient 27.2 ± 7.4 mmHg, mean AVA 0.82 ± 0.11 cm2 and mean LVEF of 64.9 ± 5.4%) and 55 males (mean age 76.1 ± 9.8 years, mean AV gradient 29.9 ± 7.2 mmHg, mean AVA 0.85 ± 0.11 cm2and mean LVEF of 62.2 ± 5.7%). Other important variables are seen in table 1. Based on the corrected ideal BSA there were 0 of 55 male patients who were re-assigned to the moderate AS category, compared to 25 of 73 (34.2%) female patients (P < 0.0001, Fisher’s exact test). CONCLUSIONS Use of the corrected ideal BSA has no effect on the hemodynamic diagnosis of low-flow, low gradient, normal LVEF severe aortic stenosis in males, but has a significant effect of the same diagnosis in females. It is therefore recommended that ideal body weight and ideal BSA be used when calculating AVA index in female patients suspected of low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis with normal ventricular function. Weight(M) Weight(F) BSA(M) BSA(F) AVAI(M) AVAI(F) SVI(M) SVI(F) Actual 82.6 ± 12.5 70.1 ± 13.5 1.95 ± 0.15 1.71 ± 0.16 0.44 ± 0.06 0.48 ± 0.07 25.9 ± 4.9 23.9 ± 5.1 Ideal 67.5 ± 6.8 49.7 ± 5.4 1.79 ± 0.13 1.47 ± 0.11 0.48 ± 0.07 0.56 ± 0.08 28.3 ± 5.5 27.7 ± 6.3 P value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 (M)=male, (F)=female, weight in kg, BSA in m2, AVAI in cm2/m2, SVI in ml/m2.

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)0.002
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207