MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297265429 · doi:10.1177/08465371221127236

Association of Pectus Excavatum With Ventricular Remodelling and Mitral Valve Abnormalities in Marfan Syndrome

2022· article· en· W4297265429 on OpenAlexaff
Dalia Hashem, Victor Chan, Kate Hanneman, Rachel M. Wald, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Maral Ouzounian, Erwin Oechslin, Gauri Rani Karur

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPectus excavatumMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineEjection fractionMitral valve prolapseMarfan syndromeBicuspid aortic valveDiastoleCardiac magnetic resonance imagingMitral valveHeart failureAortic valveMagnetic resonance imagingSurgeryBlood pressureRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Marfan syndrome (MFS) is an inherited connective tissue disorder. Pectus excavatum (PEX) is common in MFS. The purpose was to evaluate the association of PEX with cardiovascular manifestations of MFS, biventricular size and function. Methods: MFS adults undergoing cardiac MRI were retrospectively evaluated. Exclusion criteria were incomplete cardiac MRI, significant artifacts, co-existent ischaemic or congenital heart disease. Haller Index (HI) ≥3.25 classified patients as PEX positive (PEX+) and PEX negative (PEX−). Cardiac MRI analysis included assessment of mitral valve prolapse (MVP), mitral annular disjunction (MAD), biventricular volumetry and aortic dimensions. Results: 212 MFS patients were included, 76 PEX+ and 136 PEX− (HI 8.3 ± 15.2 vs 2.3 ± 0.5, P < .001). PEX+ were younger (33.4 ± 12.0 vs 38.1 ± 14.3 years, P = .02) and similar in sex distribution (55% vs 63% male, P = .26) compared to PEX−. MVP and MAD were more frequent in PEX+ vs PEX− (43/76 [57%] vs 37/136 [27%], P < .001; 44/76 [58%] vs 50/136[37%], P = .003, respectively). PEX+ had higher right ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (RVEDVi 92 ± 17mL/m2 vs 84 ± 22mL/m2, P = .04; RVESVi 44 ± 10 mL/m2 vs 39 ± 14 mL/m2, P = .02), lower RV ejection fraction (RVEF 52 ± 5% vs 55 ± 6%, P = .01) compared to PEX−. Left ventricular (LV) volumes, LVEF and aortic dimensions were similar. Conclusion: MFS adults with PEX have higher frequency of cardiac manifestations including MV abnormalities, increased RV volumes and lower RVEF compared to those without PEX. Awareness of this association is important for all radiologists who interpret aortic CT or MRI, where HI can be easily measured. PEX in MFS may suggest more severe disease expression necessitating careful screening for MV abnormalities and outcomes surveillance.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207