Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Mortality in Adult Patients with Eisenmenger Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify risk factors associated with mortality in adult patients with Eisenmenger syndrome and to assess the effect of left ventricular dysfunction on mortality in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two adult patients with Eisenmenger syndrome were retrospectively evaluated for signs and symptoms of heart failure, and underwent electrocardiography and laboratory investigations. Available echocardiograms were analyzed and left ventricular function was assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively. There were 47 deaths at 37.8 +/- 12.0 years of age. On univariate analysis clinical signs and symptoms of heart failure, right ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography, wide QRS (QRS duration >130 milliseconds), and left ventricular dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <50%) on echocardiography were associated with mortality. On multivariate analysis, signs and symptoms of heart failure, right ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography, and LVEF <50% remained strong predictors of death. CONCLUSIONS: Signs and symptoms of heart failure predict mortality in patients with Eisenmenger syndrome. Furthermore, patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF <50%) have higher mortality. A combination of signs and symptoms of heart failure, right ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography, and left ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography provides the most powerful predictor of death in patients with Eisenmenger syndrome.
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".