MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 11969: Effect of Aortic Valve Phenotype and Sex on Aortic Dilation: Results From the Progressa Study

2022· article· en· W4380794570 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Ange Fleury, Lionel Tastet, Mylène Shen, Romain Capoulade, Jérémy Bernard, Kathia Abdoun, Élisabeth Bédard, Marie Arsenault, Marie‐Annick Clavel, Philippe Pîbarot

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyBicuspid aortic valveInternal medicineAortic sinusAortic valveAscending aortaStenosisDoppler echocardiographyAortaHemodynamicsAortic valve stenosisBlood pressureDiastole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is frequently associated with aortic valve stenosis (AS) and concomitant aortopathy. However, few studies have evaluated the effect of aortic valve (AV) phenotype on the risk of progressive dilation of aorta dimensions. The aim of this study was to compare the progression rate of aorta dimensions according to AV phenotype (i.e. BAV vs tricuspid aortic valve [TAV]) and sex in patients with AS. Methods: Three-hundred twenty AS patients (231 TAV and 89 BAV; mean age: 64±14 years, 72% men) recruited in the PROGRESSA study (NCT01679431) were included in this analysis. Patients underwent Doppler-echocardiography annually to measure the AS hemodynamic severity and aorta dimensions including the aortic root (AR) at the sinus level and ascending aorta (AA) sections. The annualized change of echocardiographic parameters was assessed between baseline and last follow-up visit (median follow-up time: 4.01 [2.26 to 5.00] years). Results: Baseline AR diameters were similar between phenotypes and AA diameters were larger in BAV vs. TAV (34±5 vs. 34±4, p=0.43, 38±6 vs. 34±4, p<0.001, respectively). Median change in AR root diameter was similar in BAV vs. TAV (0.15 [-0.07 to 0.44] cm/year vs. 0.13 [-0.07 to 0.41] cm/year, p=0.69), whereas AA annualized change was larger in BAV (0.26 [0.02 to 0.52] cm/year vs. 0.14 [-0.06 to 0.40] cm/year, p=0.02). After multivariable adjustment, BAV phenotype was not a significant predictor of faster progression rate of AR or AA dilation (β: -0.003, p=0.98 and -0.095, p=0.25). In a separate analysis according to sex, the median changes in AR and AA were similar between women and men (p=0.53 and p=0.18). Predictors of AA progression rate in men were baseline AA diameter and AS severity (i.e. baseline peak aortic jet velocity) (all p≤0.03). In women, only higher low-density lipoprotein levels were significantly associated with faster AA progression (p=0.02). Regarding the AR annualized dilation, there were no significant predictors in both women and men (all p≥0.07). Conclusion: This study suggests that AV phenotype is not independently associated with faster dilation of the AR or AA in patients with established AS. However, the determinants of aorta dilation may be different between women and men.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.308 · 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→