MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130854268

Is septal glucose metabolism altered in patients with left bundle branch block and ischemic cardiomyopathy?

2006· article· en· W2130854268 on OpenAlexaff
Kerry Thompson, George Saab, David H. Birnie, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Heikki Ukkonen, Karthik Ananthasubramaniam, Robert A. deKemp, Linda Garrard, Terrence D. Ruddy, Jean DaSilva, Rob Beanlands

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeft bundle branch blockCardiologyInternal medicineMedicinePerfusionCardiomyopathyHeart failure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and contributes to left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. The abnormal septal motion may alter septal metabolic demand but this has not been well characterized in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and LV dysfunction. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of LBBB on septal metabolism in patients with ICM, LV dysfunction, and LBBB. METHODS: Fifty-three patients with LV dysfunction and ICM were identified: 34 with LBBB, 19 with normal QRS (</=100, control patients). PET using (18)F-FDG and (82)Rb was used to measure myocardial glucose metabolism and perfusion, respectively. Perfusion-metabolism differences were determined. Scar scores (matched decreases in (18)F-FDG and (82)Rb), mismatch scores (hibernating myocardium with decreased (82)Rb relative to (18)F-FDG), and reverse-mismatch (R-MM) scores (reduced (18)F-FDG relative to (82)Rb) were assessed in the septum and lateral wall. RESULTS: (18)F-FDG uptake in the septum was reduced in patients with LBBB (64.0% +/- 15.4%) compared with control patients (74.9% +/- 14.3%; P < 0.05). Mean septal R-MM was greater in patients with LBBB (19.1% +/- 15.3%) versus control patients (4.7% +/- 10.6%; P < 0.05). However, 32% (11/34) of patients with LBBB did not demonstrate septal R-MM, 91% (10/11) of whom demonstrated lateral wall perfusion defects. Of the 68% (23/34) of patients with LBBB and septal R-MM, 52% (12/23) demonstrated lateral wall perfusion defects (P < 0.05). There was a significant difference in the percentage of the lateral wall with scar between those with septal R-MM (9.3% +/- 10.5%) and those without (19.9% +/- 14.3%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Previously, LBBB was believed to be characterized by reduced glucose metabolism relative to perfusion in the septum; however, this is not always the case in ICM. LBBB is not associated with septal R-MM in >30% of this patient population. Absence of this finding was often associated with lateral wall perfusion defects, suggesting an alteration in the metabolic demand on the septum. This may have implications for HF therapies such as resynchronization and requires further study.

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 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207