Heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Nearly half of patients presenting with heart failure have a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), previously known as diastolic heart failure. The diagnosis requires fulfillment of three criteria: signs or symptoms of heart failure, presence of a normal LVEF, and evidence of diastolic dysfunction. Two of the criteria can be evaluated by echocardiography. This article reviews the echocardiographic approach to the patient with suspected heart failure with a normal left ventricular ejection fraction (HFNEF). RECENT FINDINGS: Echocardiography is the primary modality for evaluating left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function in heart failure patients. Measurements of LVEF from two-dimensional echocardiography can have significant variability despite the use of quantitative methods. The use of contrast agents and three-dimensional echocardiography can improve the accuracy. Newer modalities of tissue Doppler imaging and deformation imaging are challenging the concept that systolic function is preserved in HFNEF. Evaluation of diastolic function with echocardiography requires a comprehensive approach using multiple modalities to quantitate transmitral flow, pulmonary venous flow, mitral annular motion, myocardial deformation, and cardiac structure. The clinical applicability of parameters used for evaluating diastolic function and filling pressures is dependent on the LVEF, necessitating a unique approach in patients with suspected HFNEF. SUMMARY: A comprehensive examination with knowledge of the potential limitations of echocardiography is required to accurately interpret LV systolic and diastolic function in patients with suspected HFNEF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".