ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular imaging2025
Predicting Late Adverse Events in Uncomplicated Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection: Results From the ROADMAP Validation Study.
Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-driven false-lumen volumes predict adverse remodeling better than diameter in patients with residual aortic dissection on CT.European radiology · 2026Article
- Deep reinforcement learning for automatic anatomic CT landmark localization in Stanford Type B aortic dissection.Radiology advances · 2026Article
- Aortic dissection as a disease of vascular wall homeostasis: integrating vasa vasorum-inflammation-metabolism axis for mechanistic insight and clinical translation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRisk stratification is highly desirable in patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection but inadequately supported by evidence. We sought to validate externally a published prediction model for late adverse events (LAEs), consisting of 1 clinical (connective tissue disease) and 4 imaging variables: maximum aortic diameter, false lumen circumferential angle, false lumen outflow, and number of identifiable intercostal arteries.
methodsWe assembled a retrospective multicenter cohort (ROADMAP [Registry of Aortic Diseases to Model Adverse Events and Progression]) of 401 patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection presenting to 1 of 8 aortic centers between 2001 and 2013, followed until 2020. LAEs were defined as fatal or nonfatal aortic rupture, new refractory hypertension or pain, organ or limb ischemia, aortic aneurysm formation (≥6 cm), or rapid growth (≥1 cm per year). We applied the original model parameters to the validation cohort and examined the effect on risk categorization using LAE end points.
resultsOne hundred and seventy-six patients (44%) with incomplete imaging or clinical data were excluded. Of 225 patients in the final cohort, 90 (40%) developed LAEs, predominantly driven by aneurysm formation. Baseline maximum aortic diameter was significantly larger in patients with (42.6 [95% CI, 39.1-45.8] mm) compared with patients without LAEs (39.9 [95% CI, 36.3-44.2] mm;
conclusionsA clinical and imaging-based prediction model performed poorly in the ROADMAP cohort. Maximum aortic diameter remains the strongest predictor of LAEs in uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.