MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3211988947 · doi:10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.9202

Abstract 9202: Sudden Cardiac Death and Icd Use in Rasopathy-Associated Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: An International Multi-Centre Study

2021· article· en· W3211988947 on OpenAlexaff
Áine Lynch, Sachin Ahuja, Myriam Lafrenière‐Roula, Vivian Zhao, Kathryn Armstrong, Pete F. Aziz, Lee Benson, Ryan J. Butts, Steven D. Colan, Andréea Dragulescu, Letizia Gardin, Justin Godown, Heather Henderson, Emilie Jean‐St‐Michel, Aamir Jeewa, Paul F. Kantor, Beth D. Kaufman, Virginie Beauséjour-Ladouceur, Ashwin K. Lal, John J. Parent, Marc E. Richmond, Mark W. Russell, Seshadri Balaji, Elizabeth A. Stephenson, Chet Villa, Robert Whitehill, Jennifer Conway, Taylor S. Howard, Stephanie J. Nakano, Joseph Rosanno, Robert G. Weintraub, Seema Mital

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioStollery Children's HospitalHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertrophic cardiomyopathySudden cardiac deathCardiologyInternal medicineSudden deathCardiomyopathyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) burden in RASopathy patients (pts) with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (RAS-HCM) is not known. We compared SCD events and transplant-free survival in RAS versus primary HCM (P-HCM) pts. Methods: The international 22-center retrospective cohort study (PRIMaCY) included 190 pediatric RAS-HCM and 568 P-HCM pts. The primary outcome was 10-year freedom from SCD events (composite of SCD, resuscitated sudden cardiac arrest, and appropriate shock from a prophylactic ICD), estimated using Kaplan Meier method. Results: Of 190 RAS-HCM pts, 82% had Noonan syndrome. Age at diagnosis was lower in RAS-HCM vs P-HCM (0.9 vs 9.7 yrs, p<0.001). There was no difference in baseline LV posterior wall or septal thickness, but LVOT gradient was higher in RAS-HCM vs P-HCM (30 vs 13mmHg, p<0.001). However, frequency of myectomy was not different in RAS-HCM vs P-HCM (15.2% vs 16.7%, p=0.55). Eighteen RAS-HCM pts died (4 SCD, 2 bradycardic arrests, 5 heart failure, 3 respiratory failure, 2 other) with lower 10-year transplant-free survival in RAS-HCM vs P-HCM (84.2% vs 91.6%, p=0.026). Although 10-year cumulative proportion of SCD events was lower in RAS-HCM than P-HCM (5.4% vs 15.1% respectively, p<0.001) (Figure 1), the median age at event was not different (12yrs in RAS-HCM vs 15.2yrs in P-HCM). Of 5 RAS-HCM pts with a SCD event, 4 died and 1 received a secondary prevention ICD. An additional 10 pts received a prophylactic ICD with no appropriate shock during follow-up. The 10-year cumulative proportion of prophylactic ICD was lower at 6.3% in RAS-HCM vs 27.2% in P-HCM (p<0.001). Conclusion: Transplant-free survival was lower in RAS-HCM than P-HCM with mortality related primarily to non-SCD events. Of the RAS-HCM patients with SCD events, 4 died without an ICD highlighting the need for better risk prediction models for both SCD and heart failure mortality in this population.

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)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies→French-language works237,207→