Does False Lumen Thrombosis Lead to Better Outcomes in Patients with Aortic Dissection: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: For a long time, the association of the false lumen status and the outcomes of patients suffering from aortic dissection has been unclear, so this review article aims to study whether the unobstructed of the false lumen is related to the outcome of patients suffering from aortic dissection. METHODS: We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyzes Protocols (PRISMA) statement 2009 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022381869). We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, Web of Science and Embase to collect potential studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The main outcome is long-term survival. Data included in the study were summarized using the risk ratio or mean difference and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: There were 16 trials, 2829 patients in total, with a mean age of 62.1 years. Compared with completely thrombosed false lumen, patent group has better long-term survival (risk ratio (RR), 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.97; p = 0.01; I2 = 58%) and smaller yearly aortic growth rate (mean difference (MD), 1.03; 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.82; p = 0.01; I2 = 98%). In addition, patients with a patent false lumen had a lower risk of aortic event (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97; p = 0.02; I2 = 37%), but higher risk of aortic rupture (RR, 7.02; 95% CI, 2.55 to 19.3; p = 0.0002; I2 = 0) and hospital death (RR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.45 to 5.08; p = 0.002; I2 = 0). CONCLUSION: Completely thrombosed of the false lumen is more beneficial to the long-term survival of patients with aortic dissection. And the risk of aortic rupture and hospital death in patients with patent false lumen is 7 times and 3 times that of patients with complete thrombosed false lumen. It is expected to provide individualized medical care for different types of patients according to different false lumen status to minimize death and related complications.
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 | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".