MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14451: Mechanistic Classification and Outcomes of Isolated Aortic Regurgitation in a Contemporary Cohort of Patients

2022· article· en· W4380785708 on OpenAlexaff
Rudy R Unni, Jiaming Liang, Ibrahim Jelaidan, David T. Harnett, Munir Boodhwani, David Glineur, Ian G. Burwash, Kwan L. Chan, Thais Coutinho, Graeme Prosperi-Porta, Angel Fu, Nadav Willner, David Messika–Zeitoun, Luc Beauchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBicuspid aortic valveAortic dissectionCardiologyInternal medicineEndocarditisAscending aortaConcomitantAortic valveRegurgitation (circulation)SurgeryCohortAortaInfective endocarditis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Aortic valve regurgitation (AR) is due to leaflet disease and/or dilatation of the functional aortic annulus complex. Understanding the mechanism(s) of AR informs surgical planning of valve and aorta repair. In this study we aimed to examine the etiologies, mechanisms, and outcomes of isolated pure native severe AR in a contemporary consecutive cohort of patients. Methods: From our institutional echocardiography database, we identified all patients with native moderate-to-severe (3+) or severe (4+) AR between 2014-2019. Patients with infective endocarditis, aortic dissection, or other concomitant valve disease were excluded. AR was classified using the El-Khoury classification: Type I-normal leaflet motion (Ia = ascending aorta and sinotubular junction dilatation, Ib = aortic root dilation, Ic = aortic annular dilation), Type II-leaflet prolapse, and Type III-leaflet restriction. Valve anatomy and clinical outcomes were also extracted. Results: A total of 560 patients with at least moderate-to-severe (3+) AR were identified, 270 were excluded (92 patients for endocarditis, 152 patients for concomitant valvulopathy, 23 patients for acute aortic dissection, and 11 patients for other reasons), and 282 patients (77.3% male) were included. The most common mechanism was Type II (leaflet prolapse), idenfied in 98 (35%) patients. Multiple mechanisms of AR were identified in 164 (58%) patients. The most common combination was Type Ib (aortic root dilation) and Type II (leaflet prolapse) seen in 45 (27%) patients. Ninety-nine (35%) patients had a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). Follow-up was available for 275 patients (98%) with a median duration of 4.7±2.4 years. Of the 158 (57%) patients who underwent surgical intervention, valve repair was performed in 77 patients (49%) and valve replacement in 80 (51%) patients. Valve intervention was more common in women (70%) than in men (54%). Conclusion: In a large contemporary cohort of patients with at least moderate to severe (3+) isolated pure native AR, Type II (leaflet prolapse) was the most common mechanism, however multiple mechanisms are present in most AR patients. Aortic valve repair now accounts for almost half of the surgical interventions for isolated AR in our center.

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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→