Significance of left ventricular apical–basal muscle bundle identified by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has improved diagnostic and management strategies in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) by expanding our appreciation for the diverse phenotypic expression. We sought to characterize the prevalence and clinical significance of a recently identified accessory left ventricular (LV) muscle bundle extending from the apex to the basal septum or anterior wall (i.e. apical-basal). METHODS AND RESULTS: CMR was performed in 230 genotyped HCM patients (48 ± 15 years, 69% male), 30 genotype-positive/phenotype-negative (G+/P-) family members (32 ± 15 years, 30% male), and 126 controls. Left ventricular apical-basal muscle bundle was identified in 145 of 230 (63%) HCM patients, 18 of 30 (60%) G+/P- family members, and 12 of 126 (10%) controls (G+/P- vs. controls; P < 0.01). In HCM patients, the prevalence of an apical-basal muscle bundle was similar among those with disease-causing sarcomere mutations compared with patients without mutation (64 vs. 62%; P = 0.88). The presence of an LV apical-basal muscle bundle was not associated with LV outflow tract obstruction (P = 0.61). In follow-up, 33 patients underwent surgical myectomy of whom 22 (67%) were identified to have an accessory LV apical-basal muscle bundle, which was resected in all patients. CONCLUSION: Apical-basal muscle bundles are a unique myocardial structure commonly present in HCM patients as well as in G+/P- family members and may represent an additional morphologic marker for HCM diagnosis in genotype-positive status.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".