MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982109476 · doi:10.1139/h08-127

A comparison of Doppler, tissue Doppler imaging, and strain rate imaging in the assessment of postexercise left ventricular function

2009· article· en· W1982109476 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rob Shave, Keith George, Greg Whyte, Natalie Middleton, Emma C. Hart, Nigel Artis, David Oxborough

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoppler imagingCardiologyInternal medicineEjection fractionMedicineDiastoleDiastolic functionRadial stressStrain rate imagingStrain (injury)Strain rateHeart failureBlood pressureVelocity vectorMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Left ventricular (LV) function is characterized by contraction in the longitudinal, radial, and circumferential planes. Previous studies of postexercise changes in LV function have assessed global indices of LV function. The purpose of this study was to use 2-dimensional (2D) strain analysis to examine LV function following marathon running in the circumferential, radial, and longitudinal planes, and to compare these data with other global and regional indices of function. Fifteen (mean +/- SD: age, 32 +/- 7 years; stature, 1.76 +/- 0.08 m; body mass, 77.8 +/- 8.2 kg) competitors in the London Marathon were echocardiographically assessed pre- and postrace. 2D strain (ejection fraction (EF), Doppler (early (E) and late (A) trans-mitral filling), tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) (systolic (S') and early diastolic (E') wall-motion velocities); TDI-derived longitudinal strain (epsilon(TDI)), and systolic and diastolic strain rate (SR(TDI)); and 2D-derived peak circumferential, radial, and longitudinal strain (epsilon(2D)), and systolic and diastolic strain rate (SR(2D)) were examined. Differences pre- and postrace completion were assessed using paired tau tests, with alpha set at 0.01. All participants completed the marathon in a mean time of 213 +/- 41 min. A varied response was observed for measures of LV systolic and diastolic function following completion of the marathon (mean +/- SD): EF, 63 +/- 6 vs. 63 +/- 7% (p > 0.01); E:A, 1.70 +/- 0.37 vs. 1.17 +/- 0.37; E':A', 2.36 +/- 0.79 vs. 1.60 +/- 0.57 (p < 0.01); mean longitudinal epsilon(TDI), 19.1 +/- 5.1 vs. 17.5 +/- 4.2% (p < 0.01); mean longitudinal diastolic SR(TDI), 1.81 +/- 0.54 vs. 1.58 +/- 0.51 x s(-1) (p < 0.01); mean longitudinal systolic SR(2D), 0.73 +/- 0.21 vs. 0.97 +/- 0.22 x s(-1) (p < 0.01); mean longitudinal diastolic SR(2D), 0.94 +/- 0.34 vs. 1.01 +/- 0.23 x s(-1) (p > 0.01); mean radial systolic SR(2D), 1.20 +/- 0.15 vs. 1.45 +/- 0.32 x s(-1) (p < 0.01); mean radial diastolic SR(2D), 1.19 +/- 0.25 vs. 1.29 +/- 0.41 x s(-1) (p > 0.01); mean circumferential systolic SR(2D), -1.09 +/- 0.16 vs. -1.24 +/- 0.18 x s(-1) (p < 0.01); and mean circumferential diastolic SR(2D), -1.27 +/- 0.28 vs. -1.22 +/- 0.31 x s(-1) (p > 0.01). Marathon running promotes a varied echocardiographic response, with some functional parameters showing no change, some increasing, and some decreasing postexercise. This varied response likely reflects the complexities of cardiac function and highlights the need to adopt a multimodality approach when assessing cardiac function following exercise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.295
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207