MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411152771 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.3705

Employment of Artificial Intelligence for an Unbiased Evaluation Regarding the Recovery of Right Ventricular Function after Mitral Valve Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair

2025· article· en· W4411152771 on OpenAlexaff
Vera Fortmeier, Amelie Hesse, Teresa Trenkwalder, Márton Tokodi, Attila Kovács, Elena Rippen, Jule Tervooren, Michelle Fett, Gerhard Harmsen, Shinsuke Yuasa, Moritz Kühlein, Héctor Alfonso Alvarez Covarrubias, Moritz von Scheidt, Ferdinand Roski, Muhammed Gerçek, Tibor Schuster, Norbert Mayr, Erion Xhepa, Karl‐Ludwig Laugwitz, Michael Joner, Volker Rudolph, Mark Lachmann

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Research, Development and Innovation OfficeNemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovaciós AlapDeutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie-Herz und Kreislaufforschung.Ruhr-Universität BochumMagyar Tudományos AkadémiaDeutsche HerzstiftungTechnische Universität MünchenNemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs HivatalEuropean CommissionDeutsches Zentrum für Herz-Kreislaufforschung
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeCardiologyInternal medicineEjection fractionPulmonary arteryMitral regurgitationHeart failureVentricle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Long-standing severe mitral regurgitation (MR) leads to left atrial (LA) enlargement, elevated pulmonary artery pressures, and ultimately right heart failure. While mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) alleviates left-sided volume overload, its impact on right ventricular (RV) recovery is unclear. This study aims to use both conventional echocardiography and artificial intelligence to assess the recovery of RV function in patients undergoing M-TEER for severe MR. METHODS AND RESULTS: The change in RV function from baseline to 3-month follow-up was analysed in a dual-centre registry of patients undergoing M-TEER for severe MR. RV function was conventionally assessed by measuring the tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE). Additionally, RV function was evaluated using a deep learning model that predicts RV ejection fraction (RVEF) based on two-dimensional apical four-chamber view echocardiographic videos. Among the 851 patients who underwent M-TEER, the 1-year survival rate was 86.8%. M-TEER resulted in a significant reduction in both LA volume and estimated systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) levels (median LA volume: from 123 ml [interquartile range, IQR 92-169 ml] to 104 ml [IQR 78-142 ml], p < 0.001; median sPAP: from 46 mmHg [IQR 35-58 mmHg] to 41 mmHg [IQR 32-54 mmHg], p = 0.036). In contrast, TAPSE remained unchanged (median: from 17 mm [IQR 14-21 mm] to 18 mm [IQR 15-21 mm], p = 0.603). The deep learning model confirmed this finding, showing no significant change in predicted RVEF after M-TEER (median: from 43.1% [IQR 39.1-47.4%] to 43.2% [IQR 39.2-47.2%], p = 0.475). CONCLUSIONS: While M-TEER improves left-sided haemodynamics, it does not lead to significant RV function recovery, as confirmed by both conventional echocardiography and artificial intelligence. This finding underscores the importance of treating patients before irreversible right heart damage occurs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207