MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting Late Adverse Events in Uncomplicated Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection: Results From the ROADMAP Validation Study

2025· article· en· W4407689544 on OpenAlexaff
Dominik Fleischmann, Domenico Mastrodicasa, Martin J. Willemink, Valery L. Turner, Virginia Hinostroza, Nicholas S. Burris, Bo Yang, Kate Hanneman, Maral Ouzounian, Daniel Ocazionez Trujillo, Rana O. Afifi, Anthony L. Estrera, Joan M. Lacomis, Ibrahim Sultan, Thomas G. Gleason, Davide Pacini, Gianluca Folesani, Luigi Lovato, Arthur E. Stillman, Carlo N. De Cecco, Edward P. Chen, Ricarda Hinzpeter, Hatem Alkadhi, Sandeep Hedgire, Thoralf M. Sundt, Sander M. J. van Kuijk, Geert Willem H. Schurink, Anne S. Chin, Marina Codari, Anna M. Sailer, Gabriel Mistelbauer, Mohammad H. Madani, Kathrin Bäumler, Jody Shen, Kwok-Hung Lai, Michael P. Fischbein, D. Craig Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
KeywordsMedicineAortic dissectionAortic aneurysmCohortHazard ratioInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyAdverse effectSurgeryProportional hazards modelAneurysmCardiologyAortaConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification is highly desirable in patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection but inadequately supported by evidence. We sought to validate externally a published prediction model for late adverse events (LAEs), consisting of 1 clinical (connective tissue disease) and 4 imaging variables: maximum aortic diameter, false lumen circumferential angle, false lumen outflow, and number of identifiable intercostal arteries. METHODS: We assembled a retrospective multicenter cohort (ROADMAP [Registry of Aortic Diseases to Model Adverse Events and Progression]) of 401 patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection presenting to 1 of 8 aortic centers between 2001 and 2013, followed until 2020. LAEs were defined as fatal or nonfatal aortic rupture, new refractory hypertension or pain, organ or limb ischemia, aortic aneurysm formation (≥6 cm), or rapid growth (≥1 cm per year). We applied the original model parameters to the validation cohort and examined the effect on risk categorization using LAE end points. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-six patients (44%) with incomplete imaging or clinical data were excluded. Of 225 patients in the final cohort, 90 (40%) developed LAEs, predominantly driven by aneurysm formation. Baseline maximum aortic diameter was significantly larger in patients with (42.6 [95% CI, 39.1–45.8] mm) compared with patients without LAEs (39.9 [95% CI, 36.3–44.2] mm; P =0.001). A multivariable Cox regression model indicated that only maximum diameter was associated with LAEs (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03–1.11] per mm; P <0.001), while the other parameters were not ( P >0.05). Applying the original prediction model to the validation cohort resulted in a poor 5-year sensitivity (38%) and specificity (69%). CONCLUSIONS: A clinical and imaging-based prediction model performed poorly in the ROADMAP cohort. Maximum aortic diameter remains the strongest predictor of LAEs in uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207