Cardiovascular magnetic resonance demonstration of the spectrum of morphological phenotypes and patterns of myocardial scarring in Anderson-Fabry disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although it is known that Anderson-Fabry Disease (AFD) can mimic the morphologic manifestations of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) on echocardiography, there is a lack of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) literature on this. There is limited information in the published literature on the distribution of myocardial fibrosis in patients with AFD, with scar reported principally in the basal inferolateral midwall. METHODS: All patients with confirmed AFD undergoing CMR at our center were included. Left ventricular (LV) volumes, wall thicknesses and scar were analyzed offline. Patients were categorized into 4 groups: (1) no wall thickening; (2) concentric hypertrophy; (3) asymmetric septal hypertrophy (ASH); and (4) apical hypertrophy. Charts were reviewed for clinical information. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were included (20 males [51%], median age 45.2 years [range 22.3-64.4]). Almost half (17/39) had concentric wall thickening. Almost half (17/39) had pathologic LV scar; three quarters of these (13/17) had typical inferolateral midwall scar. A quarter (9/39) had both concentric wall thickening and typical inferolateral scar. A subgroup with ASH and apical hypertrophy (n = 5) had greater maximum wall thickness, total LV scar, apical scar and mid-ventricular scar than those with concentric hypertrophy (n = 17, p < 0.05). Patients with elevated LVMI had more overall arrhythmia (p = 0.007) more ventricular arrhythmia (p = 0.007) and sustained ventricular tachycardia (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Concentric thickening and inferolateral mid-myocardial scar are the most common manifestations of AFD, but the spectrum includes cases morphologically identical to apical and ASH subtypes of HCM and these have more apical and mid-ventricular LV scar. Significant LVH is associated with ventricular arrhythmia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".