Layer-specific systolic and diastolic strain in hypertensive patients with and without mild diastolic dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study sought to examine layer-specific longitudinal and circumferential systolic and diastolic strain, strain rate (SR) and diastolic time intervals in hypertensive patients with and without diastolic dysfunction. Fifty-eight treated hypertensive patients were assigned to normal diastolic function (NDF, N = 39) or mild diastolic dysfunction (DD, N = 19) group. Layer-specific systolic and diastolic longitudinal and circumferential strains and SR were assessed. Results showed no between-group difference in left ventricular mass index (DD: 92.1 ± 18.1 vs NDF: 88.4 ± 16.3; P = 0.44). Patients with DD had a proportional reduction in longitudinal strain across the myocardium (endocardial for DD −13 ± 4%; vs NDF −17 ± 3, P < 0.01; epicardial for DD −10 ± 3% vs NDF −13 ± 3%, P < 0.01; global for DD: −12 ± 3% vs NDF: −15 ± 3, P = 0.01), and longitudinal mechanical diastolic impairments as evidenced by reduced longitudinal strain rate of early diastole (DD 0.7 ± 0.2 L/s vs NDF 1.0 ± 0.3 L/s, P < 0.01) and absence of a transmural gradient in the duration of diastolic strain (DD endocardial: 547 ± 105 ms vs epicardial: 542 ± 113 ms, P = 0.24; NDF endocardial: 566 ± 86 ms vs epicardial: 553 ± 77 ms, P = 0.03). Patients with DD also demonstrate a longer duration of early circumferential diastolic strain (231 ± 71 ms vs 189 ± 58 ms, P = 0.02). In conclusion, hypertensive patients with mild DD demonstrate a proportional reduction in longitudinal strain across the myocardium, as well as longitudinal mechanical diastolic impairment, and prolonging duration of circumferential mechanical relaxation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".