What Happens to Cirrhotic Cardiomyopathy After Liver Transplantation? *
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Liver cirrhosis induces cardiac alterations.We aimed to define these alterations and assess their reversibility after transplantation.METHODS: Cirrhotic patients (n)04؍ and controls (n)51؍ underwent echocardiography and stress ventriculography.Fifteen cirrhotics were reevaluated 6-12 months after transplantation.RESULTS: Cirrhotics had higher left ventricular wall thickness (9.6 ؎ 1.2 vs. 8.8 ؎ 1.2mm; p< 0.05) and ejection fraction (73 ؎ 6 vs. 65 ؎ 4%, p < 0.001) than controls.Basal diastolic function was similar.During stress, patients with cirrhosis presented lower increases of heart rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, stroke volume and cardiac index (p < 0.05 for all), and diastolic dysfunction with lower ventricular peak filling rate (p ؍ 0.001).Exercise capacity was reduced (48 ؎ 21 vs. 76 ؎ 24W; p < 0.001).Ascitic patients exhibited more diastolic dysfunction at rest and during stress compared with non-ascitic patients.Liver transplantation caused regression of ventricular wall thickness (10.2 ؎ 1.3 vs. 9.5 ؎ 1.2mm; p < 0.05), improvement of diastolic function, and normalization of systolic response and exercise capacity during stress (significant increases in heart rate, ventricular ejection fraction, stroke volume, and cardiac index; p < 0.05 for all).CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac alterations in cirrhosis present with mild increases in ventricular wall thickness, diastolic dysfunction that worsens with ascites and physical stress, and abnormal systolic response to stress limiting exercise capacity.Liver transplantation reverses these alterations."A chance to cut is a chance to cure." -surgical
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".