Cardiovascular Reserve and Risk Profile of Postmenopausal Women After Chemoendocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor–Positive Operable Breast Cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To examine cardiovascular function and risk profile of postmenopausal women treated with chemoendocrine therapy (CET) for hormone receptor-positive operable breast cancer. Methods. Forty-seven breast cancer patients and 11 age-matched healthy controls were studied. Participants performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test with expired gas analysis and impedance cardiography to assess peak aerobic power (VO(2peak)) and cardiovascular function (stroke volume, cardiac output, cardiac power output, and cardiac reserve). Traditional (i.e., body mass index, lipid profile, and fasting insulin and glucose) and novel (i.e., C-reactive protein, brain natriuretic peptide) cardiovascular risk biochemical factors were also assessed. Results. Breast cancer patients had significantly lower peak exercise stroke volume (68 +/- 9 versus 76 +/- 11 ml/beat), cardiac output (10.4 +/- 1.5 versus 11.7 +/- 2.4 l/minute), cardiac power output (3.0 +/- 0.5 versus 3.5 +/- 0.9 Watts), cardiac power output reserve (1.7 +/- 0.6 versus 2.4 +/- 0.8 Watts), and VO(2peak) (1.3 +/- 0.3 versus 1.6 +/- 0.2 l x min(-1)) than control subjects (p-values < .05). Patients with the greatest impairment in VO(2peak) had the worse cardiovascular risk profile. Exploratory analyses revealed several differences in study outcomes between the 26 patients receiving hormonal therapy with tamoxifen (TAM) and the 21 patients receiving aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Conclusion. Breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant CET have a significantly and markedly lower cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiac functional reserve compared with age- and sex-matched controls. AI therapy may be associated with a more unfavorable cardiovascular risk profile than TAM. Prospective studies are required to further investigate the clinical value of these findings.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it