Effect of race on pressure recovery adjustment for prevention of aortic stenosis grading discordance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We sought to evaluate the potential impact of racial difference (Asians vs Caucasians) on the clinical usefulness of pressure recovery (PR) adjustment for preventing discordant aortic stenosis (AS) grading in patients with severe AS. Methods Data from 1450 patients (mean age, 70.2±10.6 years; 290 (20%) Caucasians; aortic valve area (AVA), 0.77±0.26 cm 2 ) were retrospectively analysed. PR-adjusted AVA was calculated using a validated equation. Discordant grading of severe AS was defined as AVA of <1.0 cm 2 and mean gradient of <40 mm Hg. The frequency of discordant grading was assessed in the overall cohort and the propensity score-matched cohort. Results Before PR adjustment, 1186 patients showed AVA values of <1.0 cm 2 ; after PR adjustment, 170 (14.3%) were reclassified as having moderate AS. PR adjustment decreased the frequency of discordant grading from 31.4% to 14.1% in Caucasians and from 13.8% to 7.9% in Asians. Patients with reclassification to moderate AS after PR adjustment had a significantly lower risk of a composite of aortic valve replacement or all-cause death than did those with severe AS after PR adjustment (HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.31–0.46; p<0.001). In propensity score-matched cohorts (173 pairs), the frequency of discordant grading before PR adjustment was 42.2% and 43.9% in the Caucasian and Asian patients, respectively, which decreased to 21.4% and 20.2%, respectively, after PR adjustment. Conclusions Clinically relevant PR occurred, regardless of race in patients with moderate to severe AS. Routine PR adjustment may be useful for reconciling discordant AS grading.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".