Regional geometric differences between regurgitant and non‐regurgitant mitral valves in patients with coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate that regional geometric differences exist between regurgitant and non-regurgitant mitral valves (MV's) in patients with coronary artery disease and due to the heterogenous and regional nature of ischemic remodeling in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), that the available anatomical reserve and likelihood of developing mitral regurgitation (MR) is variable in non-regurgitant MV's in patients with CAD. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study intraoperative three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiographic data was analyzed in patients undergoing coronary revascularization with MR (IMR group) and without MR (NMR group). Regional geometric differences between both groups were assessed and MV reserve which was defined as the increase in antero-posterior (AP) annular diameter from baseline that would lead to coaptation failure was calculated in three zones of the MV from antero-lateral (zone 1), middle (zone 2), and posteromedial (zone 3). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 31 patients in the IMR group and 93 patients in the NMR group. Multiple regional geometric differences existed between both groups. Most significantly patients in the NMR group had significantly larger coaptation length and MV reserve than the IMR group in zones 1 (p-value = .005, .049) and 2 (p-value = .00, .00), comparable between the two groups in zone 3 (p-value = .436, .513). Depletion of the MV reserve was associated with posterior displacement of the coaptation point in zones 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant regional geometric differences between regurgitant and non-regurgitant MV's in patients with coronary artery disease. Due to regional variations in available anatomical reserve and the risk of coaptation failure in patients with CAD, absence of MR is not synonymous with normal MV function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".