Left Ventricular Relative Wall Thickness Versus Left Ventricular Mass Index in Non-Cardioembolic Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In non-cardioembolic stroke patients, the cardiac manifestations of high blood pressure are of particular interest. Emerging data suggest that echocardiographically determined left ventricular hypertrophy is independently associated with risk of ischemic stroke.The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the frequency of different patterns of left ventricular (LV) remodeling and hypertrophy in a group of consecutive patients admitted with non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). In particular, we were interested in how often the relative wall thickness (RWT) was abnormal in patients with normal LV mass index (LVMI). As both abnormal RWT and LVMI indicate altered LV remodeling, the secondary objective of this research was to study whether a significant number of patients would be missing the diagnosis of LV remodeling if the RWT is not measured.All patients were referred within 48 hours after a stroke or a TIA for a clinically indicated transthoracic echocardiogram. The echocardiographic findings of consecutive patients with non-cardioembolic stroke or TIA were analyzed.All necessary measurements were performed in 368 patients, who were enrolled in the study. Mean age was 63.7 ± 12.5 years, 64.4% men. Concentric remodeling carried the highest frequency, 49.2%, followed by concentric hypertrophy, 30.7%, normal pattern, 15.5%, and eccentric hypertrophy, 4.1%. The frequency of abnormal left ventricular RWT (80.4%) was significantly higher than that of abnormal LVMI (35.3%), (McNemar P < 0.05).In this group of non-cardioembolic stroke patients, abnormal LV remodeling as assessed by relative wall thickness is very frequent. As RWT was often found without increased LV mass, the abnormal left ventricular geometry may be missed if RWT is not measured or reported.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".