Natural History of Ascending Aortic Aneurysms (40-50 mm): Impact of Bicuspid Aortic Valves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Growth of ascending aortic aneurysms in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients is controversial. Methods: To evaluate the natural history of medically treated ascending aortic aneurysms and the impact of BAV, 572 patients (104 pts BAV; 468 pts with tricuspid aortic valve(TAV) with 40-50mm ascending aortic aneurysms were followed prospectively in a dedicated thoracic aortic clinic. Results: Patients with BAV were younger (BAV: 56.5±10.6 vs. TAV: 66.9±9.9; p<0.0001) and less high blood pressure (BAV:54.4% vs. TAV:69.2%; p=0.01). Maximal ascending aortic diameter was significantly larger in BAV vs. TAV patients (46.5±2.3 vs. 45.2±3.0; p<0.0001). Mean follow-up was 3.9±2.5 years. Significantly more patients were operated during follow-up for the ascending aorta or the aortic valve in the BAV group (BAV:32.7% vs. TAV:7.3%; p<0.0001). Only one patient with TAV was operated emergently for an acute aortic syndrome. Operative mortality was 0% and overall mortality was 10.3%. Five- and ten-year freedom from ascending aortic aneurysm progression >2 mm was comparable for both groups BAV vs. TAV (86.5% vs. 83.9%) and (36.0% vs. 29.4%); (log rank=0.51). Five- and ten-year survival for both groups was BAV vs TAV (96.7% vs 96.6%) and (91.2% vs 90.8%) years (p=0.94). Conclusions: Medically treated 40-50mm ascending aortic aneurysms show slow growth rate comparable for BAV and TAV patients. Freedom from acute aortic-related events and survival are very high in both BAV and TAV 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".