MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aortic Valve Calcification Density Measured by MDCT in the Assessment of Aortic Stenosis Severity

2024· article· en· W4398185897 on OpenAlexaff
Andréanne Powers, Mulham Ali, Nicolas Lavoie, Amal Haujir, Nils Sofus Borg Mogensen, Sebastian Ludwig, Kristian Altern Øvrehus, Lionel Tastet, Catherine Rhéaume, Niklas Schofer, Jordi S. Dahl, Marie‐Annick Clavel

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStenosisCardiologyCalcificationInternal medicineAortic valveAortic valve stenosisRadiologyCalcinosisMultidetector computed tomographyComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve calcification (AVC) indexation to the aortic annulus (AA) area measured by Doppler echocardiography (AVCd Echo ) provides powerful prognostic information in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, the indexation by AA measured by multidetector computed tomography (AVCd CT ) has never been evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare AVC, AVCd CT , and AVCd Echo with regard to hemodynamic correlations and clinical outcomes in patients with AS. METHODS: Data from 889 patients, mainly White, with calcific AS who underwent Doppler echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography within the same episode of care were retrospectively analyzed. AA was measured both by Doppler echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography. AVCd CT severity thresholds were established using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses in men and women separately. The primary end point was the occurrence of all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Correlations between gradient/velocity and AVCd were stronger (both P ≤0.005) using AVCd CT (r=0.68, P <0.001 and r=0.66, P <0.001) than AVC (r=0.61, P <0.001 and r=0.60, P <0.001) or AVCd Echo (r=0.61, P <0.001 and r=0.59, P <0.001). AVCd CT thresholds for the identification of severe AS were 334 Agatston units (AU)/cm 2 for women and 467 AU/cm 2 for men. On a median follow-up of 6.62 (6.19–9.69) years, AVCd CT ratio was superior to AVC ratio and AVCd Echo ratio to predict all-cause mortality in multivariate analyses (hazard ratio [HR], 1.59 [95% CI, 1.26–2.00]; P <0.001 versus HR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.11–1.65]; P =0.003 versus HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.11–1.46]; P <0.001; all likelihood test P ≤0.004). AVCd CT ratio was superior to AVC ratio and AVCd Echo ratio to predict survival under medical treatment in multivariate analyses (HR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.27–1.58]; P <0.001 compared with HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.13–2.10]; P =0.007; HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.03–1.57]; P =0.01; all likelihood test P <0.03). AVCd CT ratio predicts mortality in all subgroups of patients with AS. CONCLUSIONS: AVCd CT appears to be equivalent or superior to AVC and AVCd Echo to assess AS severity and predict all-cause mortality. Thus, it should be used to evaluate AS severity in patients with nonconclusive echocardiographic evaluations with or without low-flow status. AVCd CT thresholds of 300 AU/cm 2 for women and 500 AU/cm 2 for men seem to be appropriate to identify severe AS. Further studies are needed to validate these thresholds, especially in diverse populations.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207