Longitudinal systolic function following aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER 2 trial and registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank Dr Raeisi Shahraki for his interest in our article published in European Heart Journal—Cardiovascular Imaging about the left and right ventricular longitudinal systolic function following aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER 2 trial and registry1 and for the comments regarding the statistical methods used in this article. First, Dr Raeisi Shahraki suggested that the comparison of hazard ratios for different indicators may not be reliable given that different units of measure were used for each variable. This limitation only applies to the analyses using the variables in continuous format, which represented a minority of the analyses and were presented in the online supplement of our article. Most analyses were indeed based on the variables entered in dichotomous format using pre-defined and well accepted cut-off values. For these analyses, the hazard ratios and their confidence intervals provide a reasonable estimate of the predictive value of the given variable and these ratios can be compared between the different variables. Secondly, we are aware that the P-values do not accurately reflect the strength of association and we therefore also provided the hazard ratios and their confidence intervals to better estimate the predictive value of each parameter of LV and RV systolic function with regard to clinical outcomes. Finally, we disagree with the statement made by Dr Raeisi that the proportional hazard assumption was violated. The Cox proportional hazard analyses were applied in three separate cohorts: (i) TAVR cohort, (ii) SAVR cohort, and (iii) whole cohort (i.e. TAVR + SAVR). Our senior expert statistician Dr K. Xu verified that the proportional hazard assumption was met in each of these three cohorts. The crossing of curves noted by Raeisi Shahraki on Figure 4 are actually from different cohorts (i.e. the curve of the TAVR cohort crossed that of the SAVR cohort) and not within the same cohort on which the Cox analysis was performed. This observation of curve crossing from different cohorts may have led Dr Raeisi Shahraki to erroneously conclude that the assumption was violated, which was not the case. The data set that has been used for this study is not available for external use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".