Aerobic Capacity and Functional Classification of Patients with Severe Left-Ventricular Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classes I/II and III of the classification systems of the New York Heart Association (NYHA), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and American Medical Association (AMA) were compared with each other and with the Weber classification (O2 uptake, VO2/kg during treadmill walking) in 35 male patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Measured end points were ventilatory threshold (VT) and peak exercise. Also investigated was whether the CCS and AMA scales, due to their more stringent differentiation, are more precise than the NYHA system in determining a limited physical capacity and whether there are other differentiating factors useful in classification which may be derived from cardiopulmonary exercise testing. At the VT, the mean VO2/kg did not differ significantly in any classification system between classes I/II and III (12.8 +/- 2.5 vs. 11.1 +/- 2.3 ml/kg/min) and corresponded to Weber class B. At peak exercise, the mean VO2/kg only differed significantly within the NYHA classification; classes I/II (16.3 +/- 3.1 ml/kg/min) corresponded to Weber class B, and class III (13 +/- 3 ml/kg/min) to Weber class C. The individual values displayed a large scatter. Factors differing in classes I/II and III of all three systems at peak exercise were the ventilatory equivalent of O2 and CO2 as well as end-tidal partial pressure for O2 and CO2. At VT these factors showed a separating character only in the AMA classification. It is not possible to determine objective functional impairment by use of the NYHA, CCS and AMA systems because they are not analogous to the Weber system. Nevertheless, these classification systems can be used for clinical assessment and follow-up.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".