Left Ventricular Velocity of Propagation: A Useful Non-Invasive Measurement When Assessing Hemodynamic Alterations in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) velocity of propagation (Vp) has been shown to be inversely related to the LV relaxation time constant. We sought to examine Vp from a group of chronic pulmonary hypertension (cPH) patients and compare these values to Vp obtained in normal individuals and patients with known LV diastolic dysfunction (LVDD). METHODS: Echo-Doppler data and Vp measurements were retrospectively collected from all patients. The studied population was divided into four groups. Group I comprised of 15 patients with normal LV diastole, group II included 27 patients with stage 1 LVDD, group III was made up of 27 patients with stage 2 LVDD, and group IV included 66 patients with cPH. RESULTS: In the cPH population studied, patients had smaller end-diastolic LV cavities with the highest Vp values but their early mitral inflow to Vp ratios were not different from healthy controls. In addition, Vp values and pulmonary wedge capillary pressures were significantly associated in patients with LV dysfunction or pulmonary hypertension (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: LVVp might be a useful non-invasive measurement to be routinely obtained in cPH patients as it probably not only reflects the compressive forces being exerted on the LV, known to increase Vp, but also might be quite useful for the non-invasive assessment of pulmonary capillary wedge pressures in these 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".