MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7017558506

Association of Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) use and the risk of aortic stenosis

2018· dissertation· en· W7017558506 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStenosisCohortPopulationAortic valve stenosisAortic valveCohort studyIncidence (geometry)Aortic valve replacementPercutaneous
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common heart valve diseases in theWestern world.It affects about 2% people aged 65 or above and the number rises to 7% by the age of 80. Presently, only invasive surgical or expensive percutaneous aortic valve replacement are available as treatment for symptomatic patients.Thus, discovery of medical treatments that slow down the progression of aortic valve disease would be a significant therapeutic advance.In vitro studies have shown the involvement of leukotriene in the pathogenesis of AS via leukotriene receptors.Therefore, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs), an established nonsteroid asthma treatment, are a potential therapeutic target of AS.Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine whether use of LTRAs is independently associated with a lower incidence of aortic stenosis using population data from Quebec.Methods: Using the Quebec, Canada health administrative databases, a study cohort of individuals over 66, principally with suspected coronary artery disease, from April 1,2001 and March 30, 2011 was created.Individuals with previous diagnosis of AS, mitral stenosis, congenital AS were excluded from the population.The outcome was a new diagnosis of nonrheumatic AS or surgical valve replacement.A nested case-control analysis was used with controls (10:1) matched by age and follow-up duration.Exposure was defined as individuals with at least 90 cumulative days of LTRAs exposure after cohort entry.Odds ratios of AS were estimated with conditional logistic regression model with adjustment for confounders.Several sensitivity analyses, principally addressing possible misclassification bias, were performed to explore the robustness of the results. Results:The cohort consisted of 20466 cases and 204660 matched controls.Mean follow up time for cases and controls was 382 and 369 days, respectively.Compared to individuals not

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→