Treatment options for young patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a multicenter retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment of patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SAS) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) retention remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these three treatment modalities and to provide evidence for their clinical application and promotion. METHODS: ) ≥ 4.0 m/s or mean pressure gradient ≥ 40 mmHg]. Patients were divided into the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) group, the surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) group, and the conservative treatment group. The primary end point was all-cause mortality during the follow-up period. RESULTS: During follow-up of 66.5 (interquartile range: 63.1-69.2) months, the incidence of the primary end point was lower in the TAVR group than in the conservative treatment group (33.3% vs. 46.4%, P = 0.023), and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was reduced in the SAVR group (12.8% vs. 22.3%, P = 0.047). The incidences of the primary end point (37.3% vs. 60.4%, P < 0.001) and stroke (19.0% vs. 40.7%, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in patients who converted to aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared with those who did not convert to AVR. CONCLUSIONS: Early AVR improved both primary and secondary end points compared with patients having conservative treatments. Conversion to AVR during conservative treatment was found to be more likely to bring net clinical benefits for such patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System NCT02917980.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".