MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ventricular Remodeling Does Not Accompany the Development of Heart Failure in Diabetic Patients After Myocardial Infarction

2002· article· en· W2128269140 on OpenAlex
Scott D. Solomon, Martin St. John Sutton, Gervasio A. Lamas, Ted Plappert, Jean L. Rouleau, Hicham Skali, Lemuel A. Moyé, Eugene Braunwald, Marc A. Pfeffer

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyDiabetes mellitusEjection fractionMyocardial infarctionHeart failureDiastoleVentricular remodelingBlood pressureEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients are at increased risk for heart failure (HF) and other adverse events after myocardial infarction (MI). Left ventricular (LV) enlargement after MI is also associated with the same increased risk. We used data from the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) echocardiographic substudy to test the hypothesis that diabetes was associated with increased LV enlargement after MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four hundred twelve nondiabetic and 100 diabetic patients underwent echocardiographic assessment at baseline and 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years after MI. HF developed in 30% of diabetic and 17% of nondiabetic patients during follow-up (P<0.001). Baseline LV diastolic size, ejection fraction, and infarct segment length were similar between diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Diabetic patients demonstrated less LV enlargement between baseline and 2 years than nondiabetic patients (0.9+/-11.1 cm2 versus 3.8+/-10.9 cm2, P=0.047). In patients who developed HF, LV diastolic dilatation (10.0+/-12.4 cm2 versus 3.7+/-13.1 cm2, P=0.06) and systolic dilatation (4.6+/-11.8 versus 0.91+/-12.1, P=0.017) were greater in nondiabetic than in diabetic patients. LV dilatation between baseline and 2 years was a predictor of HF in nondiabetic patients, but not in diabetic patients, even after excluding patients with recurrent MI and adjusting for history of hypertension, prior MI, age, treatment group, and smoking. Diabetes modified the relationship between ventricular enlargement and the risk of HF (P=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The increased incidence of HF after MI in diabetic patients is not explained by a greater propensity for LV remodeling.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.202 · 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