Surgery Versus Surveillance: A Quality-of-Life Analysis of Patients With Moderately Dilated Aortic Root or Ascending Aorta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The impact of diagnosis and management of ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm (ATAA) on patients' quality of life (QoL) is not well characterized. This study aims to compare QoL with surgery versus surveillance in patients with moderate ATAAs. METHODS: Treatment In Thoracic Aortic aNeurysm: Surgery versus Surveillance is a multicentre randomized trial for patients with ATAA between 5.0 and 5.4 cm and includes a registry of patients who underwent either surgery or surveillance. From May 2019 to December 2022, 157 patients from 15 centres were enrolled in the surveillance (n = 105) or surgery (n = 52) registry and completed baseline and follow-up 36-item short form survey (SF-36) for QoL assessment. The primary outcomes were changes in physical component summary and mental component summary (MCS) scores. Propensity matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences. RESULTS: Patients in the surveillance arm were older and had higher prevalence of hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and atrial fibrillation (all P < 0.05). The overall mean duration between baseline and follow-up SF-36 questionnaire was 13.2 ± 3.6 months. After propensity match, compared to scores at baseline, patients in the surgery arm experienced significantly greater improvement in scores in MCS (4.1 ± 10.9 vs 0.1 ± 7.7; P = 0.04), general health (7.2 ± 17.6 vs -0.7 ± 14.5; P = 0.02), and mental health (9.5 ± 17.5 vs 1.4 ± 13.4; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In a multicentre, prospective, non-randomized comparison of patients with moderate ATAAs, surgical treatment was associated with improvement in mental components of QoL at 1 year compared to surveillance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".