MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410143902 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.3678

Aetiological Phenotypes of Atrial and Ventricular Secondary Tricuspid Regurgitation and Their Prognostic Implications: Insights from the CARE-TR Registry

2025· article· en· W4410143902 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Lupi, Elena Antonioli, Angelica Praderio, Alessandro Villaschi, Elisa Soranzo, Nicola Saccani, Kamil Stankowski, Daniele Cocianni, Beniamino Pagliaro, Valeria Magni, Marco Loffi, Daniela Tomasoni, Matteo Pagnesi, Antonio Mangieri, Davide Stolfo, Gianfranco Sinagra, Marianna Adamo, Marco Metra

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationHeart failureRegurgitation (circulation)Hazard ratioEjection fractionConfidence intervalEtiologyvalvular heart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To report prevalence and clinical outcomes of different aetiological phenotypes of atrial and ventricular secondary tricuspid regurgitation (ASTR/VSTR). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Consecutive pAtients with seveRE Tricuspid Regurgitation evaluated in Heart Failure (HF) and Valve Clinics (CARE-TR) registry collected data from patients with at least severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) enrolled at three Italian centres. The present analysis includes 648 patients with secondary TR, 22.1% with ASTR and 77.9% with VSTR. Patients with ASTR were further stratified in those with atrial fibrillation (AF, 25.2%), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, 37.8%), and both (37.0%). Patients with VSTR were subdivided into those with severe left-sided valvular heart disease (LS-VHD, 28.5%), HF with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF/HFmrEF, 29.1%), HFpEF (35.5%), pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension (PH, 4.0%) and isolated right ventricular dysfunction (RVD, 2.9%). After a median follow-up of 498 days, 118 (18.2%) patients died and 153 (23.6%) were hospitalized for HF. Two-year survival free from the composite outcome of death or HF hospitalization was higher in patients with ASTR compared with those with VSTR (73.5% vs. 54.4%; p < 0.001). After adjustment for variables related with HF severity, VSTR remained independently associated with an increased risk of events (adjusted hazard ratio 2.00; 95% confidence interval 1.33-3.02; p = 0.001). Among ASTR patients, combined AF and HFpEF was associated with a poorer outcome compared with AF or HFpEF alone (60.2% vs. 80.5% vs. 83.6%; p = 0.022). Among patients with VSTR, overall survival free from the composite outcome was 85%, 65%, 54%, 39% and 38% for RVD, HFpEF, HFrEF/HFmrEF, severe LS-VHD, and pre-capillary PH, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world population with at least severe secondary TR, 22% had ASTR and showed better outcomes as compared to VSTR. Among patients with ASTR, combination of AF and HFpEF was common and associated with the worst prognosis. Among patients with VSTR, those with pre-capillary PH had the poorest outcomes, followed by those with LS-VHD.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.266
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207