Effect of bicuspid aortic valve phenotype on progression of aortic stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the progression of aortic stenosis (AS) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) or tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one patients with mild-to-moderate AS, recruited prospectively in the PROGRESSA study, were included in this sub-analysis. Baseline clinical, Doppler echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography characteristics were compared between BAV (n = 32) and TAV (n = 109) patients. The 2-year haemodynamic [i.e. peak aortic jet velocity (Vpeak) and mean transvalvular gradient (MG)] and anatomic [i.e. aortic valve calcification density (AVCd) and aortic valve calcification density ratio (AVCd ratio)] progression of AS were compared between the two valve phenotypes. The 2-year progression rate of Vpeak was: 16 (-0 to 40) vs. 17 (3-35) cm/s, P = 0.95; of MG was: 1.8 (-0.7 to 5.8) vs. 2.6 (0.4-4.8) mmHg, P = 0.56; of AVCd was 32 (2-109) vs. 52 (25-85) AU/cm2, P = 0.15; and of AVCd ratio was: 0.08 (0.01-0.23) vs. 0.12 (0.06-0.18), P = 0.16 in patients with BAV vs. TAV. In univariable analyses, BAV was not associated with AS progression (all, P ≥ 0.26). However, with further adjustment for age, AS baseline severity, and several risk factors (i.e. sex, history of hypertension, creatinine level, diabetes, metabolic syndrome), BAV was independently associated with faster haemodynamic (Vpeak: β = 0.31, P = 0.02) and anatomic (AVCd: β = 0.26, P = 0.03 and AVCd ratio: β = 0.26, P = 0.03) progression of AS. CONCLUSION: In patients with mild-to-moderate AS, patients with BAV have faster haemodynamic and anatomic progression of AS when compared to TAV patients with similar age and risk profile. This study highlights the importance and necessity to closely monitor patients with BAV and to adequately control and treat their risk factors. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: 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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".