Echocardiographic consequences of smoking status in middle‐aged subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Smoking is known to have many short‐ and long‐term cardiovascular effects. Cardiac index ( CI ), which is cardiac output indexed to body surface area, is considered to be a valid measure of cardiac performance. We investigated whether there were any differences in CI or other echocardiographic variables between never smokers, ex‐smokers, and current smokers in a cardiopulmonary healthy population. Methods Subjects (n=355) from a previous population‐based respiratory questionnaire survey (never smokers, ex‐smokers, and current smokers without significant chronic obstructive lung disease) were examined with echocardiography, and CI (L/min/m 2 ) was calculated. Results Current smokers had a higher CI than never smokers 2.61±0.52 L/min/m 2 vs. 2.42±0.49 L/min/m 2 ( P <.01). Ex‐smokers had a nonsignificant, numerically higher value for CI than never smokers 2.54±0.54 L/min/m 2 vs. 2.42±0.49 L/min/m 2 ( P >.05). Smoking status had no significant effect on other echocardiographic variables. Conclusion We conclude that currents smokers without known cardiac disease or significant chronic obstructive lung disease show signs of slightly altered hemodynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".