MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Right ventricular remolding, dysfunction, and pulmonary arterial hypertension following left ventricular myocardial infarction (648.7)

2014· article· en· W1550552911 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jason S. Huber, Mathew J. Platt, Nadya Romanova, David C. Wright, Jeremy A. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineVentricleMyocardial infarctionVentricular remodelingContractilityHeart failureHemodynamicsDiastolePulmonary arteryBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessment of cardiac function in patients with heart failure (HF) is generally limited to the evaluation of systolic and diastolic function of the left ventricle (LV). Right ventricle (RV) dysfunction is considered a sequelae of LV HF. However, the pathogenesis of RV remodeling has received little attention. Our objective was to investigate the progression of RV function following LV myocardial infarction (MI). Methods : Left and right ventricle remodeling was assessed using invasive hemodynamics, molecular and histomorphometric approaches at 2, 4 9 and 18 weeks post‐MI induced by permanent ligation of the left anterior descending artery. Results: Invasive hemodynamics revealed a decrease in LV contractility and systolic blood pressure and an increase in end diastolic pressures (EDP), which remained stable until 18 weeks post‐MI. In contrast, RV systolic pressure and contractility initially increased at 2 weeks prior to a drop off from 4 to 18 weeks post‐MI. In addition RV EDP was elevated at all time points. Re‐expression of fetal genes occurred in both ventricles with greater change of several genes in the RV as compared to the LV. Histological analysis revealed significant increases in cardiomyocyte cross sectional area and fibrosis in both LV and RV. Conclusion: Significant RV remodeling and dysfunction is evident immediately following a LV MI and may play an important and underappreciated role in the development of LV HF. Grant Funding Source : Supported by Canadian Institute of Health Research

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→