The echocardiographic assessment of the right ventricle in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia compared with athletes and matched controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are discrepancies in the quantitative echocardiographic criteria for the right ventricle (RV) between the revised task force criteria (TFC) for Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy/Dysplasia (ARVC/D) and the guidelines for RV assessment endorsed by American Society of Echocardiography (ASE). Importantly, these criteria do not take into account potential adaptation of the RV to exercise. The goal of this study was to compare the revised TFC quantitative echocardiographic parameters in patients with ARVC/D, athletes and matched controls. METHODS: Echocardiographic parameters of the RV were retrospectively collected in patients who fulfilled the TFC for ARVC/D, an age- matched, sex-matched, and body surface area-matched control population, and athletes (defined as individuals who exercised for more than 7 hours per week). Patients with structural heart disease were excluded in the control and athlete groups. RESULTS: Twenty patients with ARVC/D, 11 athletes and 20 matched controls were included. There was no significant difference between ARVC/D patients and athletes with the exception of the parasternal long axis right ventricular outflow tract diameter. All parameters were significantly different between ARVC/D patients and the control group. Furthermore, when subjects were categorized into meeting 1 major revised TFC/abnormal ASE criteria or not, only ASE criteria were able to differentiate ARVC/D from control population. Both were unable to differentiate ARVC/D from athletes. CONCLUSIONS: Right ventricle quantitative echocardiographic criteria in the revised TFC are not specific for ARVC/D. Care should be taken in applying these criteria in athletes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".