Considerations in Understanding the Coronary Blood Flow- Left Ventricular Mass Relationship in Patients with Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary blood flow (CBF) is essential for optimal cardiac performance and to maintain myocardial viability. There is considerable ambiguity concerning CBF in hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between CBF and left ventricular (LV) mass in persons with hypertension. METHODS: OvidSP Medline was systematically searched. Eligible articles assessed CBF, and LV mass in adults with and without hypertension (HTN). RESULTS: Eleven studies met the entry criteria. All 8 studies reported an increase in CBF (ml/min) for persons with hypertension (N=212) compared to individuals without hypertension (N=150). Metaanalysis showed a significant and 2.88 fold higher CBP in hypertension. Six studies adjusted CBF for LV mass; of which 4 studies reported a reduction in CBF. Meta-analysis showed a significant decrease in CBF/g LV mass in hypertension. The two studies that did not show a decrease in CBF, used the argon chromatographic method to measure coronary sinus blood flow suggesting this methodology may have influenced the results. Using the mean CBF in normotensive group to construct the expected CBF according to LV mass, reported CBF in HTN was progressively less than expected In two studies, (N=142), there was a significant inverse correlation between LV mass and CBF/ g LV mass. Multivariate analysis (three studies) consistently found a highly significant independent relationship between LV mass and CBF after considering age, sex, heart rate and several other factors. CONCLUSION: Hypertension is associated with a reduction in CBF adjusted for LV mass with a highly significant inverse association between CBF and LV mass. Clinicians should be aware that patients with hypertension are at greater risk for myocardial ischemia should develop other factors that limit CBF or myocardial oxygen delivery.
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 | 0.022 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".