MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heart Rate Response During Exercise and Pregnancy Outcome in Women With Congenital Heart Disease

2011· article· en· W1968261741 on OpenAlexaff
George K. Lui, Candice K. Silversides, Paul Khairy, Sue M. Fernandes, Anne Marie Valente, Michelle J. Nickolaus, Michael G. Earing, Jamil Aboulhosn, Marlon Rosenbaum, Stephen C. Cook, Joseph D. Kay, Zhezhen Jin, Deborah R. Gersony

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChronotropicHeart rateCardiologyHeart failureHeart diseaseInternal medicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalPregnancyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing is often used to evaluate exercise capacity in adults with congenital heart disease including women who are considering pregnancy. The relationship between cardiopulmonary exercise testing parameters and pregnancy outcome has not been defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study of women with congenital heart disease who had undergone cardiopulmonary exercise testing within 2 years of pregnancy or during the first trimester. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables included peak oxygen consumption and measures of chronotropic response: peak heart rate, percentage of maximum age predicted heart rate, heart rate reserve (peak heart rate-resting heart rate), and chronotropic index [(peak heart rate-resting heart rate)/(220-age-resting heart rate)]. We identified 89 pregnancies in 83 women. There were 4 spontaneous abortions and 1 termination. One or more adverse cardiac events occurred in 18%; congestive heart failure in 14%, and sustained arrhythmia in 7%. Peak heart rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.53, 0.94]; P=0.02), percentage of maximum age predicted heart rate (OR 0.93; 95% CI [0.88, 0.98]; P=0.01), and chronotropic index (OR 0.65; 95% CI [0.47, 0.90]; P=0.01) were associated with a cardiac event. Neonatal events occurred in 20%. Peak heart rate (OR 0.75; 95% CI [0.58, 0.98]; P=0.04), percentage of maximum age predicted heart rate (OR 0.94; 95% CI [0.89, 0.99]; P=0.02), heart rate reserve (OR 0.8; 95% CI [0.64, 0.99]; P=0.04), and chronotropic index (OR 0.73; 95% CI [0.54, 0.98]; P=0.04) correlated with a neonatal event. Peak oxygen consumption was not associated with an adverse pregnancy outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal chronotropic response correlates with adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with congenital heart disease and should be considered in refining risk stratification schemes.

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)0.006
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations125
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207