Response of myocardial oxygenation to breathing manoeuvres and adenosine infusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Testing for inducible myocardial ischaemia is one of the most important diagnostic procedures and has a strong impact on clinical decision-making. Current standard protocols are typically limited by the required infusion of vasodilatory substances. Recent data indicate that changes of myocardial oxygenation induced by hyperventilation and breath-holds can be monitored by oxygenation-sensitive (OS) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and may be useful for assessing coronary vascular function. As tests using breathing manoeuvres may be safer, easier, and more comfortable than vasodilator stress agent infusion, we compared its impact on myocardial oxygenation with that of a standard adenosine infusion protocol. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 20 healthy volunteers, we assessed changes of myocardial oxygenation using OS-CMR at 3 T during adenosine infusion (140 µg/kg/min, i.v.) and during voluntary breathing manoeuvres: a maximal breath-hold following normal breathing and a maximal breath-hold following 60 s of hyperventilation. The study was successfully completed in 19 subjects. There was a significantly stronger myocardial response for hyperventilation (decrease of -10.6 ± 7.8%) and the following breath-hold (increase of 14.8 ± 6.6%) than adenosine (3.9 ± 6.5%), whereas a simple maximal voluntary breath-hold yielded a similar signal intensity increase (3.1 ± 3.9%). Subjective side effects occurred significantly more often with adenosine, especially in females. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperventilation combined with a subsequent long breath-hold and hyperventilation alone both have a greater impact on myocardial oxygenation changes than an intravenous administration of a standard dose of adenosine, as assessed by OS-CMR. Breathing manoeuvres may be more efficient, safer, and more comfortable than adenosine for the assessment of the coronary vasomotor response.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".