Sex differences in aortic tortuosity in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The objective was to determine whether there is a difference in aortic tortuosity between men and women who underwent elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) using two-dimensional computed tomography imaging. Methods A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of male and female patients who underwent elective AAA repair from December 2014 to December 2019 was undertaken. Maximal aortic diameter was measured on preoperative computed tomography scans, and patients were categorized into two groups (<5.5 cm and ≥5.5 cm). The degree of aortic tortuosity, defined as the maximum lateral deviation from aortic centerline on coronal views (mm), was measured and compared between men and women for each group using the Student t test. Results A total of 378 patients were included in the study. Three-hundred and five patients (81%) were male with a mean age of 75 years; 73 (19%) were female with a mean age of 76 years. The average aneurysm diameter for each group was similar. The average aortic tortuosity was greater in females for both groups. In the <5.5 cm group, the average aortic tortuosity was 16.2 mm in women and 12.7 mm in men ( P = .02). In the ≥5.5 cm group, the average aortic tortuosity was 25.2 mm in women and 15.5 mm in men ( P < .01). Conclusions In patients with AAAs, greater aortic tortuosity was seen in women than in men regardless of the AAA diameter. Further studies are needed to explore the implications of this finding on the threshold for repair and the overall management plan.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".