Reducing Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Coarctation Requires Systematic Differentiation of Impacts of Mixed Valvular Disease on Coarctation Hemodynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite ongoing advances in surgical techniques for coarctation of the aorta (COA) repair, the long-term results are not always benign. Associated mixed valvular diseases (various combinations of aortic and mitral valvular pathologies) are responsible for considerable postoperative morbidity and mortality. We investigated the impact of COA and mixed valvular diseases on hemodynamics. Methods and Results We developed a patient-specific computational framework. Our results demonstrate that mixed valvular diseases interact with COA fluid dynamics and contribute to speed up the progression of the disease by amplifying the irregular flow patterns downstream of COA (local) and exacerbating the left ventricular function (global) (N=26). Velocity downstream of COA with aortic regurgitation alone was increased, and the situation got worse when COA and aortic regurgitation coexisted with mitral regurgitation (COA with normal valves: 5.27 m/s, COA with only aortic regurgitation: 8.8 m/s, COA with aortic and mitral regurgitation: 9.36 m/s; patient 2). Workload in these patients was increased because of the presence of aortic stenosis alone, aortic regurgitation alone, mitral regurgitation alone, and when they coexisted (COA with normal valves: 1.0617 J; COA with only aortic stenosis: 1.225 J; COA with only aortic regurgitation: 1.6512 J; COA with only mitral regurgitation: 1.3599 J; patient 1). Conclusions Not only the severity of COA, but also the presence and the severity of mixed valvular disease should be considered in the evaluation of risks in patients. The results suggest that more aggressive surgical approaches may be required, because regularly chosen current surgical techniques may not be optimal for such patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".