Alterations in left atrial and left ventricular coupling in mixed aortic valve disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To characterize left atrial (LA) and left ventricular (LV) function and atrioventricular (AV) coupling in patients with moderate mixed aortic valve disease (MMAVD) against those with isolated moderate or severe aortic valve disease and controls. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective LA and LV peak longitudinal strain (LS) analysis were performed on 260 patients [46 MMAVD, 81 moderate aortic stenosis (AS), 50 severe AS, 48 moderate aortic regurgitation (AR), and 35 severe AR] and 66 controls. Peak LV and LA LS and AV coupling, assessed by combined peak LA and LV strain, was compared between the groups. Analysis of variance and two-sided t-tests were used, and a P-value of <0.01 was considered significant. LV strain was significantly lower in those with MMAVD compared with controls and those with moderate or severe isolated AR but comparable to those with moderate or severe AS (-17.1 ± 1.1% MMAVD vs. -17.7 ± 1.5% moderate AS, P = 0.02, vs. -17.0 ± 1.5% severe AS, P = 0.74). AV coupling was significantly lower in those with MMAVD compared with controls and those with moderate AS or AR but comparable to those with severe AS or AR (47.1 ± 6.8% MMAVD vs. 45.1 ± 5.6% severe AS, P = 0.13, vs. 50.4 ± 9% severe AR, P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Impairments in AV coupling are comparable for patients with MMAVD and those with severe isolated AS or AR. Impairments in LV GLS in MMAVD mirror those found in severe AS. These findings suggest that haemodynamic consequences and adverse remodelling are similar for patients with MMAVD and isolated severe disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".