Determinants of exercise intolerance in patients with heart failure and reduced or preserved ejection fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mini-review summarizes the literature regarding the mechanisms of exercise intolerance in patients with heart failure and reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFREF and HFPEF, respectively). Evidence to date suggests that the reduced peak pulmonary oxygen uptake (pulm V̇o₂) in patients with HFREF compared with healthy controls is due to both central (reduced convective O₂ transport) and peripheral factors (impaired skeletal muscle blood flow, decreased diffusive O₂ transport coupled with abnormal skeletal morphology, and metabolism). Although central and peripheral impairments also limit peak pulm V̇o₂ in HFPEF patients compared with healthy controls, emerging data suggest that the latter may play a relatively greater role in limiting exercise performance in these patients. Unlike HFREF, currently there is limited evidence-based therapies that improve exercise capacity in HFPEF patients, therefore future studies are required to determine whether interventions targeted to improve peripheral vascular and skeletal muscle function result in favorable improvements in peak pulm and leg V̇o2 and their determinants in HFPEF patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".