MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410017635 · doi:10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf042

Mechanistic classification of isolated severe aortic regurgitation in a contemporary cohort of patients

2025· article· en· W4410017635 on OpenAlex
Rudy R Unni, Munir Boodhwani, Ibrahim Jelaidan, David T. Harnett, Samia Massalha, CF Liang, Graeme Prosperi-Porta, David Glineur, Ian G. Burwash, Kwan‐Leung Chan, Thais Coutinho, Angel Fu, Nadav Willner, David Messika–Zeitoun, Luc Beauchesne

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegurgitation (circulation)CohortMedicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims Aortic regurgitation (AR) arises from leaflet disease and/or dilatation of the functional aortic annulus complex. Understanding the mechanisms of AR informs surgical planning of valve and aorta repair. This study investigates the mechanisms, aetiologies, and outcomes of isolated native severe AR in a consecutive cohort of patients. Methods and results Patients with moderate-to-severe (3+)/severe (4+) native valve AR, identified from our institutional echocardiography database (2014–2018), were included. Exclusions were significant concomitant valve disease, endocarditis, or aortic dissection. AR was classified per the El-Khoury system: Type I (normal leaflet motion: Ia–ascending aorta/sinotubular junction dilatation, Ib–aortic root dilation, Ic–aortic annular dilation), Type II (leaflet prolapse), and Type III (leaflet restriction). Valve anatomy and clinical outcomes, including mortality and surgical intervention, were analyzed. Of 282 patients (77.3% male), 58.5% had multiple AR mechanisms. Type II (leaflet prolapse) was most common (48.6%), followed by Type III (36.2%). Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) represented 35.5% of the population, with leaflet prolapse observed in 72%. Multiple mechanisms were more frequent in BAV (77% vs. 48%, P < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 4.7 years (available for 97.5% of patients), 158 (57.5%) underwent an intervention with 48.7% having an aortic valve repair or valve-sparing aortic root replacement. Conclusion Although leaflet prolapse (Type II) was the pre-dominant AR mechanism, multiple contributing mechanisms were often present, particularly in BAV patients. Aortic valve repair accounted for nearly half of surgical interventions, underscoring the importance of mechanism identification to optimize repair and avoid valve replacement.

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.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.329 · 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