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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".