MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Usefulness of Aortic Valve Calcification in Patients With Low-Flow Aortic Stenosis

2025· article· en· W4406182947 on OpenAlexaff
Nils Sofus Borg Mogensen, Jordi S. Dahl, Mulham Ali, Mohamed‐Salah Annabi, Amal Haujir, Andréanne Powers, Rasmus Carter‐Storch, Jasmine Grenier-Delaney, Jacob Eifer Møller, Kristian Altern Øvrehus, Philippe Pîbarot, Marie‐Annick Clavel

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineHazard ratioStenosisEjection fractionAortic valveAortic valve stenosisRadiologyConfidence intervalHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve calcification (AVC) has been shown to be a powerful assessment of aortic stenosis (AS) severity and a predictor of adverse outcomes. However, its accuracy in patients with low-flow AS has not yet been proven. The objective of the study was to assess the predictive value of AVC in patients with classical low-flow (CLF, that is, low-flow reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) or paradoxical low-flow (PLF, that is, low-flow preserved left ventricular ejection fraction) AS. METHODS: We prospectively included 641 patients, 319 (49.8%) with CLF-AS and 322 (50.2%) with PLF-AS, who underwent Doppler echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography. AVC ratio (AVCratio) was calculated as AVC divided by the sex-specific AVC threshold for AS severity; AVC score ≥2000 Agatston units in male patients and ≥1200 Agatston units in female patients. The primary end point of the study was all-cause mortality regardless of treatment. RESULTS: Sex-specific AVC thresholds identified AS severity correctly in 137 (87%) of the patients. During a median follow-up of 4.9 (4.3–5.9) years, there were 265 deaths. After comprehensive adjustment, AVCratio was associated with all-cause mortality in patients with CLF-AS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.01–1.56]; P =0.046) and PLF-AS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.14–2.00]; P =0.004). There was an interaction ( P =0.001) between AVC and AS flow patterns (ie, CLF versus PLF) with regard to the prediction of mortality. The best AVCratio threshold to predict mortality was different in patients with CLF-AS (AVCratio ≥0.7) and PLF-AS (AVCratio ≥1). After a comprehensive analysis, AVCratio as a dichotomic variable was associated with all-cause mortality in all groups ( P ≤0.001). The addition of AVCratio to the models improved all models’ predictive value (all net reclassification index >18%; all P ≤0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CLF-AS or PLF-AS, AVC is a major predictor of mortality. Thus, AVC should be used in low-flow patients to assess AS severity and stratify risk. Importantly, in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a nonsevere AS (ie, AVC 70% of severe) could be associated with reduced survival.

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)0.000
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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