MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040282971 · doi:10.14740/jocmr2050w

Left Ventricular Diastolic Function in Hypertension: Methodological Considerations and Clinical Implications

2014· review· en· W2040282971 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pasquale Palmiero, Annapaola Zito, Maria Maiello, Matteo Cameli, Pietro Amedeo Modesti, María Lorenza Muiesan, Salvatore Novo, Pier Sergio Saba, Pietro Scicchitano, Roberto Pedrinelli, Marco Matteo Ciccone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineDiastoleDiastolic functionEjection fractionCompliance (psychology)Doppler echocardiographyLeft ventricular hypertrophyHeart failureHypertensive heart diseaseDoppler imagingDiastolic heart failureBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The assessment of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function should be an integral part of a routine examination of hypertensive patient; indeed when LV diastolic function is impaired, it is possible to have heart failure even with preserved LV ejection fraction. Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) occurs frequently and is associated to heart disease. Doppler echocardiography is the best tool for early LVDD diagnosis. Hypertension affects LV relaxation and when left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) occurs, it decreases compliance too, so it is important to calculate Doppler echocardiography parameters, for diastolic function evaluation, in all hypertensive patients. The purpose of our review was to discuss about the strong relationship between LVDD and hypertension, and their relationship with LV systolic function. Furthermore, we aimed to assess the relationship between the arterial stiffness and LV structure and function in hypertensive patients.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.007
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 head0.712
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.082 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207