Anatomic and operative predictors of aortic expansion following aortic dissection repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following surgical repair of acute type A aortic dissection(ATAAD), distal aortic degeneration and growth may occur. Previous evidence has suggested that false lumen(FL) communications and flow may influence postoperative aortic remodeling, although the contribution of branch vessel dissection and FL communications is unclear. Patients who underwent ATAAD repair from 2017 to 2023 at a single center with at least 1 year of follow-up imaging were included in this study. Patients were grouped based on aortic pathology and surgical repair. Preoperative and postoperative measurements were taken at the level of zone 1 and between zones 4/5. 63 patients were included in this study. 87.3% received a hemiarch repair, 34.9% received hemiarch + AMDS Hybrid prosthesis, and 12.7% received a total arch replacement. Proximal aortic remodeling was not reliably predicted by the presence of FL communications or surgical approach. Distal aortic growth was independently associated with ≥ 3 or 4 visceral vessel dissections(p = 0.04 - 0.005). In conclusion, distal aortic remodeling following ATAAD repair was predicted by visceral vessel involvement. While the aortic arch is often emphasized at the time of ATAAD repair, features of the distal aorta may help to risk stratify patients for long-term adverse events, helping to guide initial management and post-ATAAD repair follow-up.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".