Expert Consensus Statement: Anatomy, Imaging, and Nomenclature of Congenital Aortic Root Malformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 2 decades, several categorizations have been proposed for the abnormalities of the aortic root. These schemes have mostly been devoid of input from specialists of congenital cardiac disease. The aim of this review is to provide a classification, from the perspective of these specialists, based on an understanding of normal and abnormal morphogenesis and anatomy, with emphasis placed on the features of clinical and surgical relevance. We contend that the description of the congenitally malformed aortic root is simplified when approached in a fashion that recognizes the normal root to be made up of 3 leaflets, supported by their own sinuses, with the sinuses themselves separated by the interleaflet triangles. The malformed root, usually found in the setting of 3 sinuses, can also be found with 2 sinuses, and very rarely with 4 sinuses. This permits description of trisinuate, bisinuate, and quadrisinuate variants, respectively. This feature then provides the basis for classification of the anatomical and functional number of leaflets present. By offering standardized terms and definitions, we submit that our classification will be suitable for those working in all cardiac specialties, whether pediatric or adult. It is of equal value in the settings of acquired or congenital cardiac disease. Our recommendations will serve to amend and/or add to the existing International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code, along with the Eleventh iteration of the International Classification of Diseases provided by the World Health Organization.
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 | 0.050 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
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".