MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386424642 · doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2023.08.015

Biomechanical properties of the aortic root are distinct from those of the ascending aorta in both normal and aneurysmal states

2023· article· en· W4386424642 on OpenAlex
Jennifer Chung, Daniella Eliathamby, Hijun Seo, Chun‐Po Steve Fan, Rifat Islam, Karamvir Deol, Craig A. Simmons, Maral Ouzounian

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchUniversity Health Network
FundersAmerican Association for Thoracic Surgery
KeywordsAscending aortaAneurysmAortaMedicineAortic rootAortic aneurysmCardiologyInternal medicineAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although aneurysms of the ascending aorta and the aortic root are treated similarly in clinical guidelines, how biomechanical properties differ between these 2 segments of aorta is poorly defined.Methods: Biomechanical testing was performed on tissue collected from the aortic root (normal 11, aneurysm 51) and the ascending aorta (normal 21, aneurysm 76).Energy loss, tangent modulus of elasticity, and delamination strength were evaluated.These biomechanical properties were then compared between (1) normal ascending and normal root tissue, (2) normal and aneurysmal root tissue, (3) normal and aneurysmal ascending tissue, and (4) aneurysmal root and aneurysmal ascending tissue.Propensity score matching was performed to further compare aneurysmal root and aneurysmal ascending aortic tissue.Clinical and biomechanical variables associated with decreased delamination strength in the aortic root were evaluated. Results:The normal aortic root demonstrated greater viscoelastic behavior (energy loss 0.08 [0.06, 0.10] vs 0.05 [0.04, 0.06], P .008),and greater resistance against delamination (93 [58, 126] mN/mm vs 54 [40, 63] mN/mm, P .05)compared with the ascending aorta.Delamination strength was significantly reduced in aneurysms in both the root and the ascending aorta compared with their normal states.Aneurysms of the aortic root matched to the ascending aortic aneurysms in terms of baseline characteristics including size, were characterized by a larger decrease in delamination strength from baseline (D 59 mN/mm vs D 24 mN/mm).Aging (P .003)and the presence of hypertension (P .02)were associated with weakening of the aortic root, while diameter did not have this association (P .29). Conclusions:The normal aortic root was found to have distinct biomechanical properties compared with the ascending aorta.When aneurysms form in the aortic root, there is less strength against delamination, without other biomechanical changes such as increased energy loss observed in aneurysmal ascending aortas.Age and hypertension were associated decreased aortic wall strength in the aortic root, whereas diameter had no such association.(JTCVS Open 2023;16:38-47)

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.258 · 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