MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18769: Is Conservative Treatment Justified in Marfan Syndrome Patients with Non-Complicated Acute Type B Aortic Dissection? Insights from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection

2012· article· en· W3047597578 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Gilon, Reed E. Pyeritz, Arturo Evangelista, Patrick T. O’Gara, Kevin M. Harris, Alan C. Braverman, Mark D. Peterson, Matthias Voehringer, Toru Suzuki, Lori D. Conklin, Daniel Montgomery, Eric M. Isselbacher, Christoph Nienaber, Kim A. Eagle, Amit Korach

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic dissectionMarfan syndromeCardiologyAcute aortic syndromeInternal medicineDissection (medical)SurgeryAorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Conservative treatment is the treatment of choice in patients (pts) with non- complicated acute type B aortic dissection (TBAAD). This strategy has not been validated in patients with Marfan Syndrome (MFS) presenting with non-complicated TBAAD. Methods: Our study evaluated 586 medically managed patients with non-complicated TBAAD enrolled in IRAD between 1996 and 2011. The patients were divided into groups based on the presence (N=15, 2.6%) or absence (N=571, 97.4%) of MFS. Categorical variables were analyzed using chi-square test and Fischer’s exact test where applicable. Continuous variables were analyzed using student’s t-test for normally distributed data, and test of medians for non-normally distributed data. Results: The mean age was significantly lower for MFS patients (41.3±9.4 years vs 65±13.5 years [p<0.001]). Significantly more patients without MFS had history of hypertension (61.5% vs 40% [p<0.001]). Additionally, those with MFS had significantly higher incidence of prior aortic dissection (64.3% vs 5.8% [p<0.001]), and family history of aortic disease (75% vs 9.5% [p<0.001]). Significantly more non-MFS patients presented with hypertension (70% vs 33.3% [p<0.008]). Abdominal vessels involvement was more frequent in patients with MFS (53.3% vs 22.8% [p=0.011]). During the hospitalization, more patients with MFS had extension of their dissection (20% vs 4% [p=0.024]). None of the patients with MFS died during the index hospitalization, nor did they have new neurological or visceral ischemia. Kaplan-Meyer survival curve showed no significant difference in survival between the two groups from admission to five years follow-up. Conclusion: The presence of dissection extension in patients with MFS warrants special in-hospital attention. However, our results indicate that, similar to patients without MFS, conservative treatment may be safe in Marfan Syndrome patients presenting with non-complicated acute type B aortic dissection. Given the limited study population, more research is needed to definitively analyze whether non-complicated TBAAD MFS patients would benefit from conservative versus more aggressive dissection management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches→French-language works237,207→