Differences in Left Ventricular Global Function and Mechanics in Paralympic Athletes with Cervical and Thoracic Spinal Cord Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following a spinal cord injury, there are changes in resting stroke volume (SV) and its response to exercise. The purpose of the following study was to characterize resting left ventricular structure, function, and mechanics in Paralympic athletes with tetraplegia (TETRA) and paraplegia (PARA) in an attempt to understand whether the alterations in SV are attributable to inherent dysfunction in the left ventricle. This retrospective study compared Paralympic athletes with a traumatic, chronic (>1 year post-injury), motor-complete spinal cord injury (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale A-B). Eight male TETRA wheelchair rugby players (34 ± 5 years, C5-C7) and eight male PARA alpine skiers (35 ± 5 years, T4-L3) were included in the study. Echocardiography was performed in the left lateral decubitus position and indices of left ventricular structure, global diastolic and systolic function, and mechanics were derived from the average across three cardiac cycles. Blood pressure was measured in the supine and seated positions. All results are presented as TETRA vs. PARA. There was no difference in left ventricular dimensions between TETRA and PARA. Additionally, indices of global diastolic function were similar between groups including isovolumetric relaxation time, early (E) and late (A) transmitral filling velocities and their ratio (E/A). While ejection fraction was similar between TETRA and PARA (59 ± 4 % vs. 61 ± 7 %, p = 0.394), there was evidence of reduced global systolic function in TETRA including lower SV (62 ± 9 ml vs. 71 ± 6 ml, p = 0.016) and cardiac output (3.5 ± 0.6 L/min vs. 5.0 ± 0.9 L/min, p = 0.002). Despite this observation, several indices of systolic and diastolic mechanics were maintained in TETRA but attenuted in PARA including circumferential strain at the level of the papillary muscle (-23 ± 4% vs. -15 ± 6%, p = 0.010) and apex (-36 ± 10% vs. -23 ± 5%, p = 0.010) and their corresponding diastolic strain rates (papillary: 1.90 ± 0.63 s(-1) vs. 1.20 ± 0.51 s(-1), p = 0.028; apex: 3.03 ± 0.71 s(-1) vs. 1.99 ± 0.69 s(-1), p = 0.009). All blood pressures were lower in TETRA. The absence of an association between reduced global systolic function and mechanical dysfunction in either TETRA or PARA suggests any reductions in SV are likely attributed to impaired loading rather than inherent left ventricular dysfunction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".