MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcome of Flow-Gradient Patterns of Aortic Stenosis After Aortic Valve Replacement

2020· article· en· W3042551812 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalSt. Paul's HospitalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineEjection fractionStenosisAortic valve replacementStroke volumeAortic valveAortic valve stenosisStroke (engine)Heart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although aortic valve replacement is associated with a major benefit in high-gradient (HG) severe aortic stenosis (AS), the results in low-gradient (LG, mean gradient <40 mm Hg) AS are conflicting. LG severe AS may be subdivided in classical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) and LG (CLF-LG); paradoxical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% but stroke volume index <35 mL/m 2 ) and LG; and normal-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% and stroke volume index ≥35 mL/m 2 ) and LG. The primary objective is to determine in the PARTNER 2 trial (The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) and registry the outcomes after aortic valve replacement of the 4 flow-gradient groups. Methods: A total of 3511 patients from the PARTNER 2 Cohort A randomized trial (n=1910) and SAPIEN 3 registry (n=1601) were included. The flow-gradient pattern was determined at baseline transthoracic echocardiography and classified as follows: (1) HG; (2) CLF-LG; (3) paradoxical low-flow-LG; and (4) normal-flow-LG. The primary end point for this analysis was the composite of (1) death; (2) rehospitalization for heart failure symptoms and valve prosthesis complication; or (3) stroke. Results: The distribution was HG, 2229 patients (63.5%); CLF-LG, 689 patients (19.6%); paradoxical low-flow-LG, 247 patients (7.0%); and normal-flow-LG, 346 patients (9.9%). The 2-year rate of primary end point was higher in CLF-LG (38.8%) versus HG: 31.8% ( P =0.002) and normal-flow-LG: 32.1% ( P =0.05) but was not statistically different from paradoxical low-flow-LG: 33.6% ( P =0.18). There was no significant difference in the 2-year rates of clinical events between transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in the whole cohort and within each flow-gradient group. Conclusions: The LG AS pattern was highly prevalent (36.5%) in the PARTNER 2 trial and registry. CLF-LG was the most common pattern of LG AS and was associated with higher rates of death, rehospitalization, or stroke at 2 years compared with the HG group. Clinical outcomes were as good in the LG AS groups with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction compared with the HG group.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
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 score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.017
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.289 · 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