Running on Empty: Cardiovascular Reserve Capacity and Late Effects of Therapy in Cancer Survivorship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seminal investigations by Frank 1 and Starling 2 provided thefirst evidence that the heart possesses inherent reserve capacity—a key principle that is a pillar of modern cardiology research and practice. After 150 years of research, we now understand that cardiovascular reserve capacity (CVRC) is determined by the integrative ability of cross-system mechanisms (eg, neurohormonal, central, and peripheral oxygen delivery 3 ), which collectively possess remarkable adaptive capacity. Sequential as well as concurrent pathologic perturbations to either one or more of these mechanisms are offset by initial compensatory adaptive responses in other component systems to maintain whole-body homeostatic regulation—a process termed coordinated adaptation. 4 Unfortunately, CVRC is finite, and continued insults ultimately lead to overt dysfunction (eg, acute coronary syndromes, left ventricular dysfunction). Pathologic impairments in CVRC are etiologicinmanychronicdiseaseconditionsandarethusanintegralconsiderationindailypractice.Thepurposeofthiscommentaryistoprovidean overviewoftheguidingprinciplesandapplicationofCVRCintheoncology setting using early breast cancer as an illustrative model. Measurement of CVRC
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".