RV adaptation to increased afterload in congenital heart disease and pulmonary hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The various conditions causing a chronic increase of RV pressure greatly differ in the occurrence of RV failure, and in clinical outcome. To get a better understanding of the differences in outcome, RV remodeling, longitudinal function, and transverse function are compared between patients with pulmonary stenosis (PS), those with a systemic RV and those with pulmonary hypertension (PH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study prospectively enrolled subjects for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), functional echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The study included: controls (n = 37), patients with PS (n = 15), systemic RV (n = 19) and PH (n = 20). Statistical analysis was performed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with posthoc Bonferroni. RESULTS: PS patients had smaller RV volumes with higher RV ejection fraction (61.1±9.6%; p<0.05) compared to controls (53.8±4.8%). PH and systemic RV patients exhibited dilated RVs with lower RV ejection fraction (36.9±9.6% and 46.3±10.1%; p<0.01 versus controls). PH patients had lower RV stroke volume (p = 0.02), RV ejection fractions (p<0.01) and VO2 peak/kg% (p<0.001) compared to systemic RV patients. Mean apical transverse RV free wall motion was lower and RV free wall shortening (p<0.001) was prolonged in PH patients-resulting in post-systolic shortening and intra-ventricular dyssynchrony. Apical transverse shortening and global longitudinal RV deformation showed the best correlation to RV ejection fraction (respectively r = 0.853, p<0.001 and r = 0.812, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RV remodeling and function differed depending on the etiology of RV pressure overload. In contrast to the RV of patients with PS or a systemic RV, in whom sufficient stroke volumes are maintained, the RV of patients with PH seems unable to compensate for its increase in afterload completely. Key mediators of RV dysfunction observed in PH patients, were: prolonged RV free wall shortening, resulting in post-systolic shortening and intra-ventricular dyssynchrony, and decreased transverse function.
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".