MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409702089 · doi:10.1093/ehjacc/zuaf044.204

Usefulness of APORTEI score beyond mortality predictor

2025· article· en· W4409702089 on OpenAlexaff
G Padilla Rodriguez, A Gomez Gonzalez, F J Escalona Garcia, M Nunez Ruiz, A Pena Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCanarie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Aportei score is a validated scale for predicting postoperative mortality in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). This score is mainly used to avoid futility in patients who would not benefit from surgery due to their high risk. Purpose Our objective was to compare the occurrence of clinical complications (atrioventricular block (AVB), embolism, stroke) not included as items in the score between the different risk groups; in addition we compare the performance of cardiac surgery in each group. We registered mortality during hospitalization and CV mortality during follow-up. Methods For this purpose, a single-center prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary hospital. We included patients admitted with a diagnosis of IE between 2016 and 2023 in a tertiary hospital, dividing them according to the Aportei score into low, medium, high and very high risk to compare the incidence of complications among them. Results From 188 patients with a definitive diagnosis of infective endocarditis (men 72.5%; median age 69 years (RIQ 68)), they were distributed as follows: 27 at low risk, 28 at moderate risk, 53 at high risk and 80 at extreme risk. Surgery was performed in 48.4% of the total; when comparing the performance of surgery between risk groups, no statistically significant differences were found. Regarding stroke complications, a higher percentage was found in patients at high (37%) and very high risk (50%) (p=0.04), although no systemic embolism was found (p=0.5). Patients at higher Aportei risk had a statistically significant higher percentage of AVB (p=0.002). Mortality, regardless of whether surgery was performed, was higher in the groups of patients with higher scores, both cardiovascular (low risk 7.4% vs high risk 20.8%, p<0.001) and overall mortality during admission (low risk 7.2% vs high risk 15.1%, p<0.001). Conclusions Aportei score, in addition to being a good predictor of mortality in both interventional and non-interventional patients, seems to be related to the appearance of complications such as atrioventricular block and stroke. In our hospital, the indication for surgery was not guided by the Aportei score, with no differences in intervention between the different risk groups.Clinical complicationsAPORTEI risk

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 score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular CareSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207