Biomechanical properties of the aortic root are distinct from those of the ascending aorta in both normal and aneurysmal states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 (Δ −59 mN/mm vs Δ −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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".