Muscular dystrophies and the heart: The emerging role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscular dystrophies (MD) constitute a group of inherited disorders, characterized by progressive skeletal muscle weakness and heart involvement. Cardiac disease is common and not necessarily related to the degree of skeletal myopathy; it may be the predominant manifestation with or without any other evidence of muscular disease. Death is usually due to ventricular dysfunction, heart block or malignant arrhythmias. In addition to MD patients, female carriers may present with cardiac involvement. Clinical evaluation, electrocardiography, echocardiography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) are the diagnostic tools used for the assessment of these patients. Heart failure in MD may be delayed due to relative physical inactivity. The most common electrocardiographic findings include conduction defects, arrhythmias, hypertrophy and, potentially, evidence of myocardial necrosis, depending on the type of MD. Echocardiography is a routine technique used to assess left ventricular dysfunction, independent of age of onset or mutation. In some cases, it can also identify early, silent cardiac dysfunction. CMR is the best technique for accurate and reproducible quantification of ventricular volumes, mass and ejection fraction. CMR has documented a pattern of epicardial fibrosis in both dystrophinopathy patients and mutation carriers that can be observed even if overt muscular disease is absent. Recently, CMR techniques, such as postcontrast myocardial T1 mapping, have been used in Duchenne muscular dystrophy to detect diffuse myocardial fibrosis. A combined approach using clinical assessment and CMR evaluation may motivate early cardioprotective treatment in both patients and asymptomatic carriers, and prevent the development of serious cardiac complications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".