MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Man-machine interaction-based phenotyping preprocedurally identifies patients with severe aortic stenosis, who will not recover from cardiac damage following transcatheter aortic valve replacement

2022· article· en· W4306318005 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Rippen, Mark Lachmann, Tobias Schuster, Erion Xhepa, Moritz von Scheidt, Gerhard Harmsen, Sachiko Yuasa, Christian Kupatt, Michael Joner, K L Laugwitz

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineEjection fractionHeart failureStenosisValve replacementRegurgitation (circulation)Aortic valve replacementPulmonary arteryPulmonary hypertensionCardiac catheterizationAortic valve stenosisBicuspid valveBicuspid aortic valve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Severe aortic stenosis (AS) can lead to left heart dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension (PH), and eventually right heart failure. Clinical phenotypes therefore appear heterogeneous, depending on disease progression and comorbidities. Purpose This study therefore sought to improve diagnostic and prognostic resolution in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe AS by developing a man-machine interaction-based phenotyping approach. Methods Unsupervised agglomerative clustering was applied to preprocedural data from echocardiography and right heart catheterization from 366 consecutively enrolled patients undergoing TAVR for severe AS. Echocardiographic follow-up data, obtained on day 147±75.1 after TAVR, were available from 247 patients (67.5%). Results Cluster analysis revealed four distinct phenotypes, reflecting various extents of disease severity, and hence differing in mortality. Patients from cluster 1 presented with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; 57.2±6.4%) and with normal mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) levels (21.2±6.5 mmHg). In contrast, patients in cluster 2 suffered from postcapillary PH (mPAP: 34.2±7.8 mmHg). Left heart failure (LVEF: 42.4±15.7%), severe PH (mPAP: 46.9±8.5 mmHg), and right heart dysfunction (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion [TAPSE]: 16.1±4.57 mm) characterized patients in cluster 3. Patients from cluster 4 showed mild postcapillary PH (mPAP: 27.5±9.2 mmHg), yet dilatation of all heart chambers, biventricular dysfunction (LVEF: 47.3±12.2%, TAPSE: 16.8±4.5 mm), and a high prevalence of both mitral and tricuspid regurgitation (12.5% and 14.8%, respectively). Correction of severe AS by TAVR significantly reduced the proportion of patients suffering from concurrent severe mitral regurgitation (from 9.29% to 3.64%, p-value: 0.0015). Moreover, pulmonary artery pressures were ameliorated (estimated systolic pulmonary artery pressure: from 47.2±15.8 mmHg to 43.3±15.1 mmHg, p-value: 0.0079). However, right heart dysfunction as well as the proportion of patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation remained unchanged. Clusters 3 and 4 with persistent right heart dysfunction ultimately displayed 2-year survival rates of 69.2% (95% CI: 56.6–84.7%) and 74.6% (95% CI: 65.9–84.4%), which were significantly lower compared to clusters 1 and 2 with little or no persistent cardiopulmonary impairment (88.3% [95% CI: 83.3–93.5%] and 85.5% [95% CI: 77.1–94.8%]). Conclusion This phenotyping approach preprocedurally identifies patients with severe AS, who will not recover from extra-aortic valve cardiac damage following TAVR and whose survival is therefore significantly reduced. Importantly, not the degree of PH at initial presentation, but the irreversibility of right heart dysfunction determines prognosis. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

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)0.002
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→