New perspectives on left ventricular hypertrophy: Anatomy, physiology, and significance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of echocardiography has added an important and sensitive tool for assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy (increased left ventricular mass). Recent echocardiographic studies in large population-based samples suggest an epidemic of left ventricular hypertrophy. Preliminary data suggesting important prognostic importance for such left ventricular hypertrophy (independent of standard risk factors) has fueled interest in the development, determinants, and other features of the hypertrophy. Hemodynamic and neurohumoral factors are the most prominent stimuli to adaptive (physiologic) myocardial hypertrophy, which can progress to maladaptive (pathologic) hypertrophy. The overall blood pressure experience, overweight, the cardiovascular response to recurrent psychosocial stress and physical activity level are four important correlates and potential determinants of left ventricular mass in various urban-suburban populations. Determination of the relative contributions and interrelations of these and other factors (such as heredity) to various forms of left ventricular hypertrophy found in various demographic groups warrants intensive investigation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".