Clinical Outcomes of Myocardial Bridging versus No Myocardial Bridging in Patients with Apical Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and clinical effects of myocardial bridging (MB) in patients with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (AHCM). METHODS: Angiograms from 212 AHCM patients were reviewed to identify MB. The patients were classified into 2 groups: AHCM with and AHCM without MB. We reviewed patient records on cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, symptoms, CV events, and CV mortality. RESULTS: In all, 60 patients with MB and 100 without MB were included. Rates of angina (61.7 vs. 40%; p = 0.008), mimicking non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (15 vs. 3%, p = 0.013), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III/IV angina (18.3 vs. 4%; p = 0.003) were higher in patients with MB than in those without. Mean follow-up periods (65.5 ± 50.5 vs. 64.4 ± 43.6 months, p = 0.378) and CV mortality (3.3 vs. 1%; p = 0.652) were similar in the 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier estimates demonstrated that CV event-free survival rates were lower in patients with MB than in those without (71.7 vs. 88%; p = 0.022). MB, late gadolinium enhancement, and female sex were independent risk factors for CV events in a multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for other risk factors. CONCLUSION: More serious symptoms and a higher risk of CV events were observed in AHCM patients with MB than in those without MB. CV mortality was similar in these 2 groups.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".